Mount Orab council pauses third reading, debates rescinding emergency zoning ordinance amid data-center concerns

Mount Orab — Councilors opened a lengthy debate over zoning after members introduced two temporary 180‑day moratorium ordinances aimed at halting the approval and processing of permits for data centers and small modular nuclear reactors.

A council member who led the discussion (Speaker 2) said they would not advance a third reading of the new zoning text because the change should begin with the planning commission. The member said the council instead would bring forward an ordinance to rescind and repeal an earlier emergency zoning ordinance — listed in meeting remarks as “13 09,” adopted 12/03/2020 — and revert the village to the prior code while restarting the process with public hearings and planning‑commission review.

“I can honestly say that this is unlawful. It is improper,” Speaker 2 said, arguing the ordinance had been adopted without the three required readings or documented reasons for an emergency finding and that the council has a duty to correct an improper adoption.

Why it matters: Council discussion centered on process and legal risk as much as substance. Several councilors and residents said missing planning‑commission minutes or unclear public‑notice procedures could make the ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge; others said rescinding the emergency ordinance and starting the process anew would allow required hearings, a formal recommendation from the planning commission and full public input.

Public commenters pressed the council for more transparency and community benefits. Candy Bolas, who identified herself as a lifelong resident, urged elected officials to press developers for clear job numbers, training partnerships with Western Brown and Southern State and protections for nearby watersheds.

“I have concerns regarding the environmental and climate impacts of this data center,” Candy Bolas said. “Did our development director, Kelly Cole, find out information about those jobs — the type, qualifications, number of permanent on‑site employees that are needed?”

A separate public commenter raised allegations that village staff and council had engaged in private email chains with developers and that some records produced in response to public‑records requests were redacted; that commenter urged the council to seek independent outside counsel to investigate perceived conflicts of interest and to help the village exit nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that may limit what officials can disclose to the public.

Council response and next steps: Councilors said they had received informal legal advice by email and agreed to request a formal, written legal opinion. Several members said they would seek more written documentation and, if necessary, outside counsel to evaluate whether the emergency adoption met statutory requirements. The moratoriums (presented as ordinance 13 39 and 13 40 in remarks) were described as a breathing room measure while the planning and public‑hearing process is completed.

Local context: Speakers repeatedly emphasized that rescinding an improperly adopted emergency ordinance would not necessarily prevent the village from ultimately adopting similar zoning — but would require the formal planning commission recommendation, advertised public hearing before council and the full reading process. The meeting record includes multiple requests that the planning commission minutes and any public notice be produced for the record.

What remains unresolved: Council did not adopt the repeal or a substantive zoning change during the meeting. Several residents and council members asked for a written legal opinion, suggested obtaining outside counsel, and requested documentation (planning‑commission minutes, public‑notice records and copies of NDAs) before any final action is taken.