Oldham County debate over data center moratorium intensifies as applicants shift sites

Opponents and supporters of proposed data-center projects pressed Oldham County leaders on June 17 over whether the county should immediately adopt a moratorium and new zoning rules for data centers, and whether an applicant that withdrew a proposal for Highway 53 should be allowed to try another site before rules are in place.

A number of residents told the fiscal court they want a full, no-exceptions moratorium to pause any new data-center applications until the county finalizes zoning definitions and safety rules. Nathan Oberg, representing a group organized to oppose the projects, urged officials to “come up with a definition for a data center” and said the moratorium should cover all facilities so the county can update its comprehensive plan and zoning language before additional applications are submitted.

Judge Executive David Vogel responded at length, saying the court is following established procedures, that the moratorium had been introduced for first reading on June 3 and would be considered again at the next meeting, and that the court is preparing regulations. Vogel said he had asked a company that had proposed a site on Highway 53 to consider alternative locations and that he had not instructed anyone to withdraw appeals. He also said the county will subject any applicant to the rules the court adopts.

Multiple residents said the court’s process has been too slow and raised concerns about transparency and private meetings. Rob Houchins, who has an appeal pending before the Board of Adjustments, asked only to be heard and said he opposed using a single conditional-use-permit pathway that he believes could be applied broadly across zoning districts. Several speakers, including Jamie Hilligons and Elaine Tischendorf, urged a moratorium without carve-outs; Allen Hayes urged the court to use the pause to study regional options such as capturing waste heat from data centers for community use.

Other speakers, including Jailer Jayler Tindle and others familiar with county operations, described longstanding contractual and facility relationships that involve federal contracts and detention work, noting those are separate matters from the data-center discussion. Tindle said contracts and daily operations predate the current controversy.

Vogel told the public the court is compiling regulatory language, will bring it forward through planning staff and the planning commission, and that any data-center proposal would be evaluated against those rules. He repeated that the county has no plans to use eminent domain to force private development, and he said assertions of collusion with applicants were incorrect. Vogel also listed potential uses for any additional revenue—police, roads, parks and other community projects—while urging residents to allow the planning process to run its course.

The matter is scheduled for further action at the fiscal court’s next meeting; the court indicated a second reading of the moratorium ordinance and additional regulatory work will proceed before a final determination.