Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge moratorium on proposed data center, citing water use, property-value and infrastructure concerns
Summary
Multiple Canton and Louisville residents told Stark County commissioners at the April 15 meeting that a proposed data center could strain local infrastructure, reduce property values and require secrecy via NDAs; speakers asked the board to consider a moratorium and provide records of prior public comment.
At the April 15 meeting of the Stark County Board of Commissioners, five residents urged the board to slow or halt consideration of a proposed data center, raising concerns about environmental impacts, local infrastructure strain and effects on property values.
Thomas Swallen of Canton told commissioners he was concerned about the data center’s potential environmental and infrastructure strain on the county. Brenda Parsons of Canton asked the board to impose a moratorium, saying the project would have negative effects for Stark County residents. Lois Croston of Canton raised potential impacts to real estate values, water usage and increased noise pollution. Joanna Swallen asked the board for information about previous public-comment minutes related to the data center, indicating a desire for transparency about earlier discussions. Tim Aral of Louisville questioned nondisclosure agreement sign-offs in connection with the project, flagging NDAs as a point of concern.
The public comments were delivered during the meeting’s public-comment period; the board did not take a formal vote or announce any directive on the data center during the session. No county staff or commissioners provided a substantive response on the record in the meeting minutes to the specific requests for a moratorium, details about prior public comments, or the NDA concerns.
Why this matters: data centers can require large amounts of water and electrical infrastructure and often prompt questions about traffic, noise and property values in nearby residential areas. Speakers at the April 15 meeting asked the board for a pause or clearer public records so residents can review earlier proceedings and better evaluate potential local impacts.
Next steps noted in the minutes: the board proceeded to its scheduled agenda items (approvals and resolutions) and did not record a board action or motion addressing the data center comments during this meeting. If the board or county staff schedule a follow-up review or public hearing on the project, that will be recorded in subsequent meeting minutes.
