Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warren County adopts ordinance to regulate siting of data centers after public concerns
Summary
The Warren County Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance #2026-0302A after months of drafting and public comment about water impacts, tax abatements and transparency. Commissioners said the measure establishes a regulatory baseline and can be amended later.
Warren County commissioners on March 2 approved an ordinance intended to regulate where data centers may locate in the county, moving ahead after a months‑long drafting process and public complaints about environmental and tax impacts.
Commissioner President Clay Andrews introduced the ordinance and said the county has been working on siting standards for more than six months. Members of the public raised concerns that locating large data centers could lower water levels in the Big Pine area, generate noise and air pollution, and create transparency problems when developers ask officials to sign nondisclosure agreements. Several speakers also urged a moratorium on new data center approvals; resident Lyn Martin specifically questioned why the county would not pause new approvals while the ordinance was finalized.
County Attorney Jud Barce explained how state economic-development abatement rules interact with local policy, saying that under current IEDC procedures projects requesting more than $750 million in investment may seek abatement terms; Barce described the distinction between the longer abatements sometimes discussed and more-limited options for certain projects. Commissioner Craig Greenwood acknowledged the public concerns but said the board needed a local ordinance in place to provide regulatory authority; Greenwood said amendments could follow after adoption. Andrews said he could not support a moratorium because no project was currently before the county.
After discussion, Commissioner John Comer moved to adopt Ordinance #2026-0302A; Craig Greenwood seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Commissioners said a copy of the ordinance is available online and indicated they expect to consider amendments if issues arise in applications or based on further technical review.
The ordinance establishes local siting requirements rather than an outright ban, according to county discussion. The board did not take additional regulatory steps such as imposing a temporary moratorium at the March 2 meeting. The ordinance’s effective details—including any permitting process, setbacks, or water‑use limitations—were discussed at a high level in the meeting record; staff and the Advisory Plan Commission had earlier recommended the draft to the board.
