Fulton County commissioners ask planning panel to form study committee after public outcry over proposed data‑center moratorium

Fulton County commissioners on April 16 heard extensive public comment on a planning‑commission recommendation to adopt a one‑year moratorium on permitting data centers and voted to ask the planning commission to form a committee to study possible ordinance changes before the county takes final action.

The planning commission had issued a favorable recommendation and presented a signed certification of that recommendation for a 12‑month moratorium on granting permits for data centers, a presenter told the board. A county staff member cited the statutory process referenced in the meeting — described in the transcript as "Indiana code, 36,746,007 E1" — and said the moratorium itself cannot be adopted tonight. Under that process, the recommendation must be certified and publicized, and the commissioners will vote on the measure at the first regular meeting after the planning commission's recommendation, the staff member said.

The public comment period that followed drew more than a dozen residents. "We've got about 1,000 signatures," said Charles Dredge of Akron, noting organizers had collected petitions. Fulton County resident Ethan Trotter said the extra time would allow officials to "ask experts" and to define what a moratorium would mean in practice: "A year is ideal," Trotter said. Other residents urged caution or opposed locating a data center in Fulton County. "I personally don't think that a data center belongs in Fulton County," Molly Trottier said. By contrast, Mike Kolesiak, who said he lives north of the proposed site and owns 80 acres, said he supported the development and told commissioners a data center could reduce his taxes; he also said an assessor had projected roughly a 25% devaluation to his property if one were sited nearby.

After public comment, Commissioner Brian (as introduced at the meeting) moved that the planning commission be asked to put together a committee to study the moratorium and any ordinance changes the public seeks during the moratorium period. Another commissioner seconded the motion. The board approved the motion, 3‑0. The chair said the moratorium would be considered at the next regular commissioners' meeting after the required certification and public notice under the statute cited at the meeting.

Commissioners also agreed to move a future meeting time to an evening hour so more residents can attend public hearings and allowed the planning commission — not the commissioners themselves — to select committee members, consistent with the state process described by staff. Several commissioners said a one‑year moratorium provides sufficient time to assemble studies and solicit community input, but one said a shorter period (two to three months) should be possible and warned a full year could deepen divisions.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to ask the planning commission to form a committee to study the moratorium and proposed ordinance changes: moved by Commissioner Brian; seconded by another commissioner; outcome: approved 3‑0. - Motion to allow a contractor (referred to in the transcript alternately as Paul Slisher and Paul Schlescher) to trade county materials/time for credit on previously contracted culvert work: moved and seconded; approved 3‑0. - Acceptance of Beverly Jackson's resignation from the public defenders board: approved 3‑0. - Appointment of five people to the tourism board (Rebecca Hartzler, Melinda Klinger, Sheena Bitterling, Stacy Heckathorn, Tiffany Lukens): approved 3‑0. - Funding commitments: Youth Outlet Center $6,000 (2026); Marshall Stark Development Center $30,000: approved 3‑0.

Why this matters

A moratorium would pause permitting while county officials and a stakeholder committee study whether and how data centers should be regulated locally. Residents and landowners framed the issue around local land use, property values and community character; supporters of the moratorium framed it as a study period to define protections and standards.

What happens next

County staff said the planning commission's favorable recommendation must be certified and the action publicized with statutory language before the commissioners may vote. The board's vote to request a planning‑commission committee does not enact the moratorium; the transcript shows the formal decision is scheduled for the next regular meeting after the required notice.

Reporting notes and attribution

Quotes and attributions in this story come from speakers in the April 16 meeting transcript. Where speakers identified themselves, this article uses the name or role they gave in the record (for example, Charles Dredge, "from Akron," and Ethan Trotter, "Fulton County resident"). When only a first name or meeting role appeared in the transcript, the article uses the name or functional label as presented in the record.