Residents urge Sunbury Council to pause Amazon/AWS data-center approvals, citing taxes, water and noise

Dozens of residents voiced opposition to steps that would enable a proposed Amazon/AWS data center during the public-comment portion of the Sunbury City Council meeting on March 18.

"What does this actually bring Sunbury?" asked Annette McMurray (3690 Worthington Road, Genoa Township), who said the city had proposed a community reinvestment area exemption that she described as 87.5% abated for 15 years and 75% for another 15 years and called for independent analysis, enforceable clawbacks and minimum investment or job guarantees.

Residents raised environmental and quality-of-life concerns in a string of comments. A speaker identifying as Dr. Brandon warned that data-center cooling discharges can include biocides, corrosion inhibitors, heavy metals and PFAS; he called for independent testing and comprehensive environmental and public-health studies before approvals proceed. Several speakers warned of generator noise and lighting, higher utility demands and the potential for property-value declines.

Mayor St. John and City Manager Hennessey told the audience that, to date, the city has not received a development plan or a development agreement for the project and that key infrastructure (electricity, water) is not yet in place. "A development plan is really where buildings are, what it's going to look like," Hennessey said, and a development agreement would be the document listing contractual timelines, financial obligations and any enforcement or clawback language.

Council members said staff have been asked to research several resident concerns, including "low-frequency noise," limits on generator testing and operation, property-value impacts near existing Central Ohio data centers, and air and water quality and reuse standards. The mayor said some timelines discussed publicly for providing power to the site have extended into the next decade and that no construction plan or development agreement has been filed with the city.

Speakers urged greater transparency and a more participatory public process. One resident noted a lack of posted ordinance text for certain agenda items and cited Ohio Revised Code Section 731.30 when questioning the council's use of emergency-declaration language for certain measures.

Councilmembers repeatedly told residents there was no imminent construction scheduled and that annexation is an early procedural step; zoning, planning commission review, public hearings and a development agreement would follow if a developer files a plan. The mayor said an annexation vote merely admits land into the city's jurisdiction and that any site-development approvals would be separate and subject to public hearings.

The meeting produced no binding approvals related to the data center. Residents called for a pause or moratorium, independent fiscal and environmental studies, public forums with developers and clearer documentation of any tax or PILOT schedules. Council asked staff to return with research on the listed technical and fiscal issues before taking substantive development actions.

What happens next: The annexation referenced on the March 18 agenda remains at first reading; council told the public that the zoning process and any development-plan review will include public hearings at both Planning & Zoning and council levels, and that no variances were expected to be granted without following normal procedures.

Sources: public comments and council members at the March 18, 2026 Sunbury City Council meeting; city manager and mayor statements in the same meeting.