In a move that appeared decisive on the surface, the Oldham County Fiscal Court unanimously voted to deny a highly anticipated set of regulations governing data center development, but the decision was far more nuanced than a simple rejection. This vote was a carefully orchestrated procedural tactic, designed not to kill the prospect of data centers but to send the proposed rules back to the drawing board for significant, community-driven revisions. The tense January 20th meeting exposed the deep-seated friction between the pressures of economic development and the community’s desire to preserve its local character. It also highlighted the intricate legal and political maneuvering required by local officials as they navigated a tight deadline, vocal public opposition, and sharp internal disagreements. The ultimate decision to deny the ordinance was a strategic retreat, one that keeps the county’s moratorium on data center construction firmly in place while forcing a more restrictive and thoughtful approach to the future of large-scale tech infrastructure within its borders.
A Calculated Denial Rooted in Legal Strategy
The journey to the Fiscal Court’s decision was a long and meticulous one, beginning in April 2025 with the first of several Study Review Committee meetings. The process involved a Business and Infrastructure Task Force established by Judge Executive David Voegele, which convened six times to deliberate on the complex issue. By the time the Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded its final recommendation to the Fiscal Court on October 28, 2025, it was clear that several magistrates had serious reservations. Their primary concern was the scope of the proposed rules, which would have permitted data centers of various sizes in four key zoning districts: C-4 (Commercial Highway), I-1 (Light Industrial), I-2 (Heavy Industrial), and IPD (Industrial Park District). Several officials believed this was far too permissive and sought to remove one or more of these districts from the ordinance, a move they felt was necessary to protect the county from overdevelopment by massive hyperscale facilities. This desire for more restrictive zoning set the stage for a significant procedural clash.
Faced with a desire for substantial edits, the court found itself in a legal bind, as explained by County Attorney D. Berry Baxter. Under Kentucky state law, removing entire zoning districts from the proposed ordinance would constitute a “material change.” Such a significant alteration would legally reset the entire legislative process, requiring a new “first reading” of the revised ordinance. This created an insurmountable timing issue, as “Chapter 100” of the state statute imposed a strict 90-day window for the Fiscal Court to either approve or deny the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the deadline rapidly approaching, there was insufficient time to conduct the necessary public notices and readings for a new version of the rules. Baxter advised that the only legally sound path forward was a formal denial. This procedural maneuver would send the proposal back to the Planning Commission for the desired edits without the pressure of the 90-day clock, effectively allowing the magistrates to achieve their goal of crafting a more restrictive ordinance while ensuring the county’s moratorium on data center development remained securely in effect.
The Intersection of Public Outcry and Political Will
The procedural decision-making was heavily influenced by a preceding public hearing, where Oldham County residents voiced near-unanimous opposition to the proposed regulations. The primary source of their concern was the potential for massive “hyperscale” data centers to be constructed in Industrial Park District (IPD) zones. Citing the Oldham County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, citizens argued passionately that these districts were intended for light industrial and commercial uses, explicitly excluding the kind of heavy industrial development characteristic of large-scale data facilities. Their testimony painted a clear picture of a community determined to protect its landscape and quality of life from the environmental and aesthetic impact of sprawling tech infrastructure. This strong public sentiment provided a powerful mandate for the magistrates who were already leaning toward a more cautious and restrictive approach, demonstrating a clear alignment between the will of the people and the emerging consensus on the court. The hearing transformed a debate over zoning text into a defense of the county’s fundamental character.
This alignment between public and official sentiment was powerfully articulated by Judge Executive David Voegele following the hearing. “I don’t think there is any place where a hyper[scale] data center would fit in Oldham County,” he stated, citing the county’s limited available land as a primary obstacle. This comment solidified the court’s direction but also set the stage for an unexpectedly heated internal conflict. When Magistrate Stephanie Hawkins made a motion to deny the regulations and send them back with the court’s desired changes, a debate erupted not over the action itself, but over the process. Voegele insisted that each magistrate submit their proposed changes in a formal, typewritten document, amending the motion to that effect. Hawkins rejected the amendment, arguing the Planning Commission was capable of synthesizing the various requests. The disagreement quickly escalated, with Voegele accusing Hawkins of being “lazy” before slamming his gavel to restore order. Though the two officials reportedly apologized after a recess, the tense exchange laid bare the high stakes and palpable stress surrounding the future of Oldham County’s development.
A Complex Path Forward
The data center debate did not occur in a vacuum; it was emblematic of a broader challenge facing Oldham County as it grapples with the integration of modern technology. This same tension was apparent in discussions regarding the Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera system. During the meeting, citizens expressed significant worries about the surveillance technology, raising concerns about potential privacy invasions, the risk of data breaches, and the possibility of the system being misused for malicious purposes. In response, Oldham County Police Chief Greg Smith provided a detailed overview, explaining that data from the 17 active cameras is retained for only 30 days unless needed for an investigation. He defended the system’s efficacy, noting its instrumental role in solving at least three homicide cases. While the court pushed back on data center development due to community and land-use concerns, it took a different stance on surveillance technology. The magistrates unanimously approved a $27,000 contract for three additional Flock cameras, signaling a willingness to embrace technology when it aligns with public safety priorities, even in the face of privacy objections. This decision, juxtaposed with the data center denial, illustrated the court’s nuanced and case-by-case approach to technological advancement.
Ultimately, the Oldham County Fiscal Court’s actions reflected a delicate balancing act. The strategic denial of the data center regulations was a clear victory for residents who feared the impact of large-scale industrial development. By sending the rules back for revision, the court affirmed its commitment to a more controlled and community-centric growth model. At the same time, the court continued to manage the routine but essential business of governance. It approved surety bonds for elected officials, accepted a federal road safety plan to become eligible for future grants, and handled several personnel appointments. This demonstrated that while major policy debates captured the headlines, the fundamental work of running the county moved forward. The decision on data centers was not an end but a pause, a deliberate choice to demand a better plan rather than accept a flawed one. It left the future of such development in Oldham County uncertain, pending a new set of rules that must now navigate the narrow path between economic opportunity and the preservation of the community’s character.
