Proposed Data Center Regulations for Wilmington Will Not Be on November Ballot
The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that a citizen initiative to add data center regulations to Wilmington's zoning code cannot appear on the November ballot. The court found that the proposal improperly included a provision allowing private citizens to sue data centers for zoning violations, which is beyond the city's power to enact. This decision upholds the Clinton County Board of Elections' rejection of the ballot measure.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has blocked a citizen-led initiative to impose new regulations on data centers within the city of Wilmington from appearing on the upcoming November ballot. The court ruled that the proposed ordinance improperly included a "private cause of action," which would have allowed residents to directly sue data centers for zoning violations, a power that municipalities are not authorized to grant through ballot initiatives. This decision affirms the Clinton County Board of Elections' prior refusal to certify the measure.
The initiative was brought forth by Quintin Koger Kidd and Susan Croutwater, who sought to add a new chapter to Wilmington's zoning code. Their proposal aimed to establish enforceable standards for various data center operations, including noise, lighting, airborne emissions, generator testing, water usage, and heat generation, to protect public health and welfare. It also sought to provide citizens with the right to seek fines, suspension of occupancy certificates, or revocation of conditional use permits against non-compliant data centers.
The Supreme Court's per curiam opinion cited a 2018 case, State ex rel. Bolzenius v. Preisse, which similarly found that creating a private right of action for enforcing municipal ordinances exceeds a city's constitutional authority. While the proponents argued their initiative merely incorporated existing causes of action, the Court found it went beyond state law by removing the requirement for neighboring property owners to prove "special damages" and by offering broader remedies like fines and operational revocations.
Justice Patrick F. Fischer authored a dissenting opinion, contending that election boards should not be empowered to determine the legality of ballot issues before they are enacted. He argued that such determinations should be reserved for the judicial branch after a law has been passed, highlighting concerns about the separation of powers.