Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunbury residents urge council to reject data centers, cite health and neighborhood impacts
Summary
Residents told the Sunbury City Council they oppose proposed data centers and a large industrial park, warning of health risks, higher utility costs and major neighborhood changes; the city announced a June 25 informational meeting and staff will post a public‑comment log online.
Katrina Sante, a Sunbury resident, told the council during public comment that her family’s health struggles — including Crohn’s disease and melanoma — make her especially worried about large data‑center projects and their environmental impacts and asked council to "say a clear no to the data centers." Sante said residents fear higher electricity bills, falling property values and long‑term environmental harms.
Alicia Dodie, who lives adjacent to the proposed industrial park, said the project’s scale is difficult for most residents to comprehend and described it as "half the size of Sunbury," warning the development would transform neighborhoods and urging council members to visit her home to see the potential impact. Barry Bennett asked the city to publish a clear public‑facing update explaining what council can and cannot do, noting community confusion about timelines and whether the council has any votes pending on data‑center proposals.
City Manager Mr. Hennessy told the council staff is monitoring an Ohio select committee on data centers that has taken testimony from state agencies, PJM and members of the public, and he announced a special Sunbury council meeting on data centers set for June 25, 2026 at Big Walnut High School. Hennessy said staff will produce an internal summary of the state hearings and will post the list of public comments that the city has collected to the city website so residents can verify the record.
Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized that the council has placed a moratorium on data‑center development agreements to allow time for study and for the state process to proceed; they said that moratorium was intended to let the city analyze public feedback and expert testimony rather than to ignore concerns. Council members encouraged residents to review the posted materials and to participate in the June 25 special meeting.
The city did not take any formal votes on data‑center projects at the June 3 meeting; the next procedural step announced was the June 25 informational session and continued staff work to synthesize testimony from the state select committee.
