Pasco County adopts one-year moratorium on large data‑center applications

The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners on July 7 unanimously approved a county-initiated ordinance imposing a temporary one‑year moratorium on acceptance of applications related to data centers and other "large load" electricity customers in unincorporated Pasco County.

Amanda Hill, planning development and economic growth staff, read the ordinance (PDE26-077) into the record and told commissioners the draft would bar submission and acceptance of building permits, site plans, development orders, development agreements, special‑exception and conditional uses, rezonings and comprehensive‑plan amendments tied to large data centers for 12 months. The ordinance excludes typical on‑site server rooms and establishes a proposed 2.5‑megawatt cap for incidental data‑center uses to prevent circumvention of the moratorium.

The draft includes a new whereas clause and, under the county's application of the pending‑ordinance doctrine, was made retroactively applicable to May 27, 2026, the date the item was first advertised in the Tampa Bay Times, Hill said.

Public speakers urged the moratorium but asked the county to consider stronger measures. "There is a big risk of contamination to our groundwater," said Cindy Scarda, a New Port Richey resident, who urged a permanent ban or stricter limits and cited an out‑of‑state contamination incident. Jeff Roberts, a retired U.S. Central Command portfolio manager, urged the county to plan for hyperscale transmission needs and renewable backup; other speakers raised concerns about nondisclosure agreements between developers and officials, noise, potential health effects, and heavy water use.

County Attorney (on the record) told the board that a moratorium's legal purpose is to allow the county to study appropriate restrictions and, if necessary, determine that certain uses are not appropriate. He also noted that courts have previously identified one year as a presumptively reasonable moratorium period, with short incremental extensions sometimes used to finish regulations.

Chairman Mariano asked for a motion; after it was moved and seconded the board conducted a roll‑call vote. Commissioners Oakley, Waitemann, Starkey, Yeager and Chairman Mariano voted aye. The ordinance passed 5–0.

The board directed staff to collect and consider additional public information and technical data submitted during the yearlong pause. Hill said staff had added electronic‑waste (e‑waste) considerations to the list of items to address in any future development agreements and reiterated that the moratorium is intended to preserve regulatory space while staff completes research and regulatory drafting.

The moratorium does not change the county's ability to evaluate existing development agreements; board members said the pause gives the county time to craft standards that address water use, cooling technologies, noise, and transparency around agreements with developers. The measure also includes a severability clause and an effective date tied to the retroactive applicability noted above.

What happens next: staff will compile technical input and public submissions during the 12‑month moratorium and return with proposed implementing regulations or recommendations to the board; any extension beyond a year would be considered in incremental steps if legally necessary.