Middleton Twp. zoning commission votes against data center rezoning request
The Middleton Township Zoning Commission voted against recommending a rezoning request from Liames LLC for 39.2 acres, which would facilitate an expansion of a data center with a parking lot and retention pond. Residents voiced strong opposition due to concerns about water levels, loss of agricultural land, and infrastructure costs. The decision now moves to the township trustees for a final vote.
The Middleton Township Zoning Commission voted 4-1 against recommending a zoning change for 39.2 acres adjacent to a data center under construction at Ohio 25. The applicant, Liames LLC, sought to rezone the land from A-1 agricultural to M-1 industrial to build a parking lot and retention pond. The decision now proceeds to the township trustees, who have 20 days to adopt, deny, or modify the commission's recommendation, requiring a majority vote if they deny or modify.
Christopher Ingram of Vorys, representing Liames LLC, urged the commission to approve the request, citing the Wood County Planning Commission's favorable recommendation. Ingram argued the additional land was necessary for employee parking and construction equipment, stating that off-site parking would increase traffic. He also noted the proposed zoning aligned with the township's existing land use plan.
Area residents packed the meeting to express their opposition. Roy Miller of Cross Creek Road claimed his water level had dropped since data center construction began, attributing it to the project's impact on the water table. Sean McKenzie of Dunbridge Road called the rezoning a "land grab" and argued that losing agricultural land for a temporary construction parking lot was not worthwhile. Greg Hickerson of Five Point Road noted the project's expansion beyond its original scope, while Tenesha Ulrich of Carter Road urged the commission not to be constrained by the land use plan.
Concerns were also raised by residents outside the township, including Chris Coultrip of Perrysburg Township, who questioned who would bear the ancillary costs of the development, such as increased first responder staffing and water infrastructure needs, suggesting a bond to cover residents' potential water loss. Margaret Quickel of Five Point Road inquired whether the threat of a lawsuit would influence the commission's decision, to which Chairman Ross Fought responded it would not, as their role was solely to make a recommendation.