Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rural residents urge McLennan County to block nearby hyperscale data center, support agricultural district
Summary
Several residents told the McLennan County Commissioners Court the proposed hyperscale data center near Riesel would sit within a half‑mile of family homes and farmland and urged creation of an agricultural development district to protect rural land; the court ratified a notice for an Aug. 4 hearing on that petition.
Speakers during the public‑comment period said they feared a proposed hyperscale data center would permanently alter rural communities. A Lorena landowner who said he grew up on his family's 72‑acre farm told the court the data center drawings he has seen place the facility “less than 0.5 mile from the property line” of his parcel and about 0.6 mile from the site of his old home, and that his daughter might build nearby if the land remains agricultural.
Sarah Menarch, who identified herself during public comment, said the project would convert productive farmland into an industrial corridor and asked commissioners to use every available legal authority to protect agricultural land and families. “The proposed hyperscale data center would be built just feet from people's homes and in family farmland,” she said, urging the court to establish protections that could serve as a model for other rural communities.
The court staff had already received a petition to create an agricultural development district and recommended the court ratify publication of the notice for a required public hearing; staff said the hearing must occur within 30 days of petition receipt. Commissioners ratified the publication of notice and set the public hearing for Tuesday, Aug. 4, after staff said municipalities listed in the petition would be asked to provide recommendations in time for the hearing. Staff also explained creation of such a district would, if approved, trigger a confirmation election in affected municipalities.
The public commenters named a developer (referred to in public remarks as Infra Key) and said they do not trust its transparency; residents asked the county to delay any action until concerns about proximity, infrastructure capacity and long‑term land use are addressed. The court did not take a legislative action on the petition itself at the July 28 meeting but moved forward the required public‑hearing notice.
