Mount Orab council faces residents’ backlash over proposed data‑center site; 180‑day moratorium debated

Mount Orab officials spent the bulk of a crowded council meeting addressing community outrage over a proposed data‑center campus and allegations that earlier leaders used nondisclosure agreements that prevented public disclosure.

A council member reading a second ordinance said the village should pause processing permits for data centers and small modular reactors for 180 days to study environmental, utility and public‑safety impacts. “This is just putting brakes on it for six months and letting us learn as much as we can about the project,” said a committee member who introduced the second reading. Council discussion repeatedly returned to a compromise view that 180 days would create time for research and outreach; members noted that the moratorium can be extended by later ordinance if needed.

Why it matters: residents said earlier administration actions and sealed discussions left them blindsided. “We never were informed of rezoning of data codes or the possibility of the monster that we would be facing,” said Alexis Davidson, who told the council she lives a short distance from the proposed site and urged officials to “stop this at any cost necessary.” Several other residents described property‑value, environmental and health worries and demanded independent review of earlier procedural steps.

Union and workforce concerns were a recurring theme. Trent Clark, a business representative with the Central Midwest Carpenters Union, urged the council to condition any future project approvals on local‑hiring or domicile agreements, apprenticeship commitments and contractor benefit standards so community workers could gain long‑term advantages from construction projects. “Make them sign an agreement…put a 50‑ to 60‑mile circle around the project site and say you have to fill this with X percent locals,” Clark said.

Residents also pushed the council to examine alleged procedural problems with a zoning change passed Dec. 3, 2024. One council member said the current council is within a two‑year window under Ohio Revised Code section 713.121 to challenge ordinances enacted with procedural errors and introduced an ordinance (referred to in the meeting as 13‑42) to rescind what that member called an improperly passed emergency zoning ordinance.

What the council did: the council held second and first readings of moratorium and repeal ordinances and extensively debated whether to suspend rules and read an ordinance a third time to shorten the process. Ultimately, members decided not to suspend the rules to force an immediate emergency passage; no final moratorium adoption vote was recorded at the meeting. Several members urged transparency and described the 180‑day pause as a reasonable starting point.

What’s next: supporters of a pause said the third reading would give the public and potential developers a chance to provide additional information at the next meeting. Residents pressed for an outside legal opinion on potential conflicts involving retained counsel and asked the solicitor to help obtain public records related to prior zoning actions.

Quotes: “You kept it from us,” Paula Brown told council, addressing perceived secrecy. “We are the victims because you all knew about this data center,” she said. Council leaders said they want to get as much information as possible before making long‑term decisions.

Procedural note: council recorded roll‑call votes on separate personnel and administrative motions during the same meeting; the moratorium discussion remained at the reading and debate stage.