Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Franklin County Commission to put data-center rezonings to a countywide vote, allege conflicts
Summary
Hundreds of Franklin County residents urged commissioners to refer two proposed hyperscale data-center rezonings to a binding countywide ballot, raised environmental and farmland-loss concerns, and alleged potential conflicts of interest involving local commissioners; commissioners declined to answer detailed questions during the public-comment period.
Hundreds of residents told the Franklin County Commission during a public-comment session that proposed hyperscale data centers would threaten farmland, water resources and rural character and urged the commission to send rezoning decisions to a binding countywide ballot.
The most direct demand came from Corbett Shannon, who asked commissioners to "place a binding question before the voters of Franklin County on the ballot" and alleged unresolved conflicts of interest involving local developers and elected officials. Shannon also urged the commissioners to "vote no on Provident, vote no on Beltline" and to fill a vacant township seat before moving forward.
Why it matters: Residents said the projects would transform hundreds of acres of agricultural land, create extraordinary electrical and water demand, potentially strain emergency services and deliver limited long-term local employment. Several speakers cited large turnouts at the March 17 Planning & Zoning meeting — described by commenters as roughly 900–1,000 attendees — as evidence of broad opposition.
What residents asked: Neighbors and activists repeatedly requested that the commission refer two specific rezoning proposals to the ballot: a Diamond Farms site of roughly 574–575 acres and a McLaren/Crooked Creek site described in public comments as about 400–490 acres. April Ryen Hoover asked the commission to refer proposed amendments to Articles 27 and 8 of the county's unified land-use regulations and to certify substantially similar ballot questions to the Franklin County Election Authority.
Allegations and process concerns: Corbett Shannon accused commissioners of allowing a process "managed around the public" and cited Missouri Revised Statutes Chapters 49 and 64 as a legal path to put the question before voters. He alleged conflicts tied to land ownership and legal representation involving local developers and commissioners; those allegations were presented as claims by commenters and were not answered during the meeting. County officials repeatedly emphasized that this was a public-comment period, not a question-and-answer forum, and said it was premature to comment on matters before Planning & Zoning.
Technical and zoning details raised by speakers: Nancy K. Watson called the rezonings "spot zoning" and asked why setback rules differed between sites (commenters recorded Diamond Farms at a 1,000-foot setback and McLaren at 400 feet). Public commenters also noted that Article 10 caps a data-center site at 800 acres and expressed concern that developers might seek buyouts and expand footprints toward that limit.
Next steps noted in the session: Commissioners told speakers they would not engage in Q&A during the comment period and that decisions would await Planning & Zoning recommendations. No motions or votes were taken at the session documented in the transcript; multiple speakers demanded a ballot referral or legal remedies if the commission advanced approvals without more public input.
A portion of the public comment session ended as speakers exceeded allotted time limits; comments continued across multiple speakers who emphasized environmental, fiscal and community-character risks.
