Clinton County commissioners deny rezoning of roughly 714.55 acres for proposed data center

Clinton County commissioners on Jan. 20 voted unanimously to deny a rezoning request for roughly 714.55 acres that would have rezoned agricultural land (A-1) to light industrial (I-1) for a proposed data-center and mixed-use project.

Liz Stitzel, representing the Area Plan Commission, told the board the plan commission had forwarded a favorable recommendation with commitments but that the county did not yet have signed, matching commitments from the developer and landowner. "State law does allow you to modify commitments after the plan commission," she said, adding that "if you were to choose to take action on this involving commitments, you should not do that until we have signed commitments from the developer in our hands that match an ordinance with those same commitments." The plan commissionhearing record showed the proposal covered about 714.55 acres.

The denial followed extended remarks from commissioners and a prolonged public-comment period in which neighbors, community activists and some industry-affiliated speakers aired competing views. One commissioner said water and electricity concerns had been addressed by the developer and the local utility while noting the overriding concern was impacts on property owners near the proposed site; another commissioner said recent negotiations had left them "increasingly uncomfortable" and recommended denial.

Public commenters pressed a mix of environmental, safety and legal questions. Richard Hammer, a public commenter, framed his objection in privacy terms, saying, "Thanks to AI and data centers, the U.S. has literally become a surveillance state," and urged the board not to "welcome one into Clinton County." Venetia Morse, who identified herself during public comment, raised enforceability questions about commitments when developers use leases or special-purpose entities and asked whether the countyBESS (battery energy storage system) ordinance referenced at earlier meetings had been completed. Morse asked, "Has the BESS ordinance been completed?" Stitzel and staff responded that moratoriums and recorded commitments are distinct mechanisms and that commitments must be signed by landowners and are recorded and binding when properly executed.

Supporters of the proposal urged the board to delay a final vote until fiscal analyses were completed and fiscal numbers were supplied. Rick Gunyan, speaking as a member of the Frankfort utility board, said based on available information the development would not have a meaningful impact on city utilities and described a proposed arrangement that combined a data center, a precast plant and a hydroponic farm as a "sustainable" development with potential local benefits. He asked the board to consider economic opportunities and asked for a delay to review municipal fiscal numbers.

After public comment closed, a motion to deny the rezoning as presented was made and seconded and the board recorded a 3-0 vote to deny. Staff emphasized that denial is not the same as a moratorium; a moratorium would be a separate ordinance restricting a primary use category temporarily. They also noted a 12-month waiting period applies if the identical applicant and acreage attempt to refile the same rezoning application.

What happens next: The denial means the plan commission recommendation does not take effect; the county retains the existing agricultural zoning for the parcels at issue. Commissioners and staff said they would continue to receive written commitments and could revisit specific proposals or different filings that vary in acreage or applicants. No formal commitments were signed on the record at the meeting.

Provenance: Topic introduced in the transcript by Liz Stitzel at SEG 159 through the public comment and motion recorded at SEG 1113-1139.