Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge court to block data centers; commissioners move to reinstate development commission
Summary
Multiple residents opposed proposed power plants and data centers along the Brazos River and urged use of 'subchapter k' to limit industrial development. The court accepted counsel’s recommendation and voted to post applications for a five‑member development commission to advise on regulation and land‑use implementation.
Several residents told Hood County’s commissioners on Nov. 25 that proposed power plants and data centers near the Brazos River would harm health, quiet and property values and urged immediate county action under state law.
Matt Long, a Pecan Plantation resident, framed the issue in moral and environmental terms and urged commissioners to reject large data‑center campuses: "We don't need a law on the books to stand against that. We just say no, not in Hood County," he said. Jessica Long, who lives directly on the Brazos River, described persistent humming and low‑frequency noise from an existing facility and warned that a proposed Pacifico power plant and data centers across the river would be "so much worse," citing concerns about health effects and declines in home values.
The court connected those public concerns with legal strategy. The judge introduced Blake/Blakely Fernandez of Bracewell (retained by the county) to brief commissioners on interpreting and using "subchapter k" — a state statutory framework the county may leverage to create development districts and regulations for unincorporated areas. Fernandez said the county's existing development permit regulations already contain many elements in subchapter k and recommended reinstating a five‑member development commission (statutorily structured) rather than creating a separate economic council.
After Fernandez’s presentation, the court moved to post applications for the development commission with an application deadline of December 5 at noon. The motion to post the development commission applications carried unanimously. The reinstated commission will be asked to review the county strategic plan, propose land‑use district changes and make recommendations to the commissioners on permit regulations and enforcement; Fernandez recommended pairing the commission’s work with targeted engineering and additional legal advice to ensure rules are precise and enforceable.
The court did not adopt immediate ordinance language on site‑specific bans at the Nov. 25 meeting; instead, the action taken was to begin the formal process of appointing an advisory/regulatory commission and to have the retained counsel prepare briefs on legislative intent for potential use with the attorney general's office.
Next steps: the court instructed staff to post the application, work with Fernandez and County Development staff (Clint Head referenced in the meeting) to assemble the development commission and return with recommended regulatory amendments.
