Indiana zoning board clears path for proposed hyperscale data center on former Army site
The Jefferson Proving Ground project's zoning determination was appealed by opponents.
The Jefferson Proving Ground project's zoning determination was appealed by opponents.
The Jefferson Proving Ground project's zoning determination was appealed by opponents.
Despite a contentious hearing in southern Indiana over a proposed hyperscale data center on old Army property, the project can move forward.
It ended with the Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals agreeing with the zoning administrator.
The board had been asked to decide whether the zoning administrator correctly determined that the data center does not need a special use exception. The zoning administrator found the data center operation is similar to other uses the county allows in a heavy industry zone, so it did not need the exception.
That decision was appealed.
Brenda Partridge, a Jefferson County resident, said a data center at the Jefferson Proving Ground is not appropriate for the community.
“They either recognize that there are exceptions that they need to look at before they accept this, or they need to do a pause,” Partridge said.
Deanna Ford, whose family owns the property the U.S. Army used to operate, said the proposed site is the right place.
“There are data centers everywhere — 4,000 data centers in America. This is the best place for it--industrial property, former airport. It's a lot less noisy than a jet engine,” Ford said.
Ford said the project could bring $60 million in annual tax revenue to the county and support hundreds of jobs, including technical and data specialists, landscaping and security.
The issue before the board was that data centers are not explicitly listed in Jefferson County’s development ordinance.
Laureen White, arguing against the zoning decision, said the appeal does not dispute that a data center belongs in an industrial zone.
“This appeal does not dispute that a data center belongs in an industrial zone. Instead, it challenges Mr. Cline's determination that no special exception is required,” White said.
Andi Metzel, arguing for the zoning decision, said trying to list every possible use would be unfeasible, and said the board should uphold the finding.
“It is impossible to state and identify every single possible use that you could think of, because the next year, there's always going to be another one,” Metzel said.
Partridge said the board should consider whether additional ordinances or regulations are needed before moving forward.
“They brought a valid point that we now need to consider and take a closer look and determine whether or not we do need additional ordinances, regulations, before we go forward,” Partridge said.