Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shepherdsville debates one‑year moratorium on data centers as council, attorney spar over legality
Summary
The city attorney presented a first reading of a proposed one‑year moratorium on data centers while joint zoning regulations are revised; council members disagreed about whether county zoning already prevents such developments and whether a city moratorium would expose the city to legal risk.
City legal counsel read a proposed ordinance placing a temporary, one‑year moratorium on establishment, expansion or construction of data centers in Shepherdsville while joint zoning regulations are updated, prompting a heated debate among council members.
The attorney said the moratorium would pause approvals related to data centers until the forthcoming joint county‑city zoning regulations are reviewed and adopted, but that the moratorium would by statute be limited to a maximum one‑year period to avoid an indefinite restriction.
Several council members argued the city already is protected because current county zoning classifies large data operations as a commercial "data‑processing" use that does not allow modern data centers. One council member said their conversations with the county planning official indicated the city is effectively protected under current rules; another council member disputed that reading.
The city attorney cautioned that a complete ban on data centers would be illegal in some circumstances and warned that a moratorium improperly written or applied could invite constitutional challenges, saying courts frown on open‑ended or substantively arbitrary moratoria. "When you put a moratorium on, you're telling people without a hearing ... you can no longer use your land the way that the zoning regulations may allow you to use your land," the attorney said, noting due‑process and takings concerns.
Council members debated alternatives including coordinating with the county planning office, hiring outside counsel or consultants, or relying on the county's forthcoming regulation revision. One member referenced Cave City, which recently adopted a similar measure and is being sued.
Why it matters: The moratorium, if adopted, would affect who may propose large industrial uses in or near city limits and could be challenged in court if not narrowly tailored. Council members were split over whether the action is necessary to protect the city’s character or legally defensible given shared county planning authority.
Next steps: The item was read as a first reading; council did not adopt a final moratorium during this meeting. The attorney recommended using the one‑year limit and coordinating with county planners to minimize legal exposure.
Provenance: City attorney read the proposed moratorium and led the legal discussion (introduction and reading began SEG 843 and debate continued through SEG 1269).
