Clinton County commissioners decline to act on data-center rezoning after hours of public comment

Clinton County commissioners voted 2‑1 on Nov. 4 to take no action on a rezoning request tied to a proposed data center and to continue research and site visits before any final decision. The motion leaves the application “on the table” through the statutory review window while commissioners and staff gather additional technical and financial information.

The commission’s discussion followed nearly two hours of public comment in which residents raised a mix of technical and community concerns. Rick Gunion, a Frankfort resident and engineering consultant, urged commissioners to insist on legally recorded commitments and said the developer’s economic consultant projected about "$270,000,000 in local tax income over the next 25 years," a figure he said the county should verify through its financial advisers. “We have all those tools available to us,” Gunion said, pointing to enforceable contract terms known as clawbacks or recorded commitments.

Several speakers urged caution. Lisa Quintenard told commissioners she and neighbors were not approached before the project surfaced on a city zoning petition and said she feared large water and energy demands, noise from cooling systems and backup generators, and long-term strain on local services. “The benefits are few and the long term impacts are significant,” Quintenard said, and she asked the board to consider a local moratorium on data centers.

Other residents, including Venetia, argued the county lacks ordinances specific to data centers and recommended model requirements used in neighboring counties: site plans, emergency-access plans, proof of electricity and water supply, noise‑mitigation plans, renewable-energy commitments and formal decommissioning plans. “We need proactive conversations on creating long-term sustainability for these things,” she said.

Scott Wolfram, an Indiana businessman who said he is working with the developer’s team, named DataONE as the potential end user and said a site visit to an existing DataONE campus in Vineland, N.J., was being arranged so commissioners could inspect real-world operations and talk with officials in a jurisdiction that hosted a data center.

Liz Stitzel, the county planner, told the board the Area Plan Commission submitted no recommendation and explained how “commitments” can be recorded and bound to future landowners if the commissioners approve rezoning with conditions. She also clarified the statutory timing: with no plan-commission recommendation, the application will die after the 90‑day statutory window unless the commissioners act.

Commissioners said they need more time to evaluate technical questions — particularly water and electrical infrastructure, local economic benefits, enforceable commitments and end‑user identity — and to visit an operating facility. Commissioner (chair) argued the county and city initially set out a sequence of follow-up meetings and due diligence steps that were not completed, while other commissioners said they were arranging site visits and direct conversations with the end users.

The motion on Nov. 4 asked staff and selected commissioners to continue fact-finding and return with findings; the board said it could call an emergency meeting if it needed to act before the statutory deadline. The motion carried 2‑1. No rezoning or recorded commitments were approved at the meeting.

Next steps: the board directed staff to continue arranging due diligence visits and to assemble the financial and technical analyses residents requested. The commissioners said they would either act before the 90‑day window expires or let the application lapse if no decision is reached.

(Reporting note: direct quotations and attributions come from the county meeting transcript.)