Warrick County planning commission hears hours of public comment on proposed data‑center ordinance

The Warrick County Area Planning Commission on Tuesday opened a public hearing on a proposed data‑center ordinance that would define small (up to 10,000 sq ft), medium (10,001–40,000 sq ft) and prohibit large centers (above 40,000 sq ft) and set detailed special‑use requirements for medium facilities.

The proposal, drafted by a study committee and presented by county counsel, would allow small and medium data centers only in manufacturing zoning districts and would require applicants to meet multiple operational, noise and decommissioning conditions before receiving a special‑use permit. County counsel told the commission that "large data centers are moratoriumed in Warrick County so that anything above 40,000 square feet is prohibited," and reminded the audience that the APC can only recommend an ordinance; the county commissioners must adopt it.

Why it matters: the draft aims to provide local rules in advance of any application so the county is not forced into arbitrary denials if a company applies. Proponents said well‑designed projects could bring construction jobs and long‑term economic benefits; opponents said the draft does not yet include adequate protections for water, disposal and long‑term decommissioning costs and urged more study or a moratorium.

Union and business voices urged the commission to avoid an outright ban. "We are against any type of moratorium or capping any project due to its size," said John Bates, business manager of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 136, pointing to construction and maintenance employment. Sean Russell of Ironworkers Local 103 said, "The question is whether Warrick County should permanently prohibit certain future investments before knowing what they might look like," and asked the county to evaluate any project on its merits.

Residents and technical experts pressed the commission on water use, noise and enforcement. A speaker with environmental health experience said the draft lacked clear enforcement and penalty provisions for operational requirements and asked who would monitor ongoing impacts. An industry facilities expert described decommissioning risks and water‑discharge scenarios, saying counties need statutes and a watchdog to prevent contaminated releases.

Several commenters urged a pause or more study. Lloyd Winnecke, president and CEO of the Evansville Regional Economic Partnership, said the draft appeared stricter than peer communities and asked the APC to table it for broader input, while Commissioner Sarah Seaton (speaking for herself) recommended returning the draft to the committee rather than supporting a two‑year moratorium that could "essentially be a full stop." Others called for a shorter study period to craft environmental safeguards and enforceable bonds for decommissioning costs.

Board discussion before public comment focused on whether the ordinance should include megawatt limits, a decommissioning bond requirement and enforceable noise limits tied to existing county ordinances. Staff said small/medium centers would be permitted only in manufacturing zones and that the APC does not itself adopt ordinances or moratoria; that authority lies with the county commissioners.

What happened next: the commission recessed after two hours of public testimony without taking a final vote on the ordinance. The APC will consider the testimony and may return the draft to the committee for revision before making a recommendation to the county commissioners.

Provenance: The presentation and ordinance definitions were introduced by the chair and county counsel; public testimony and the subsequent recess are recorded in the hearing transcript beginning with the chair's opening remarks (SEG 325) through the break called after speaker Dina Jacobs (SEG 2780).