Marshall County Zoning Commission unanimously recommends six-month data center moratorium

As the heated debate over potential data center development rages on at the city level, the Marshall County Zoning Commission met in regular session at the courthouse on Thursday morning and unanimously recommended a six-month moratorium to allow for further research into the impacts of such projects and time to bring back proposed regulations related to the construction of data centers, Artificial Intelligence (AI) computing facilities, data mining facilities and cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) mining operations.

Like the city's Planning and Zoning Commission, the county commission, comprised of Chairman Bill Hobson, Pat VonAhnen and Will Wears, can only make recommendations that are subject to Board of Supervisors approval. After voting in favor of a variance request for a small parcel of land near the Bethel Grove Church outside of Liscomb, the commission kicked off the data center discussion.

As the commissioners took time to read through the proposed ordinance, County Zoning Administrator Tyler Kelley explained the process by which it would ultimately be adopted, requiring three readings unless the Supervisors choose to waive the second and third readings.

Hobson eventually welcomed the chairman of the city's P&Z Commission, Jon Boston, forward to explain Marshalltown's process, where the "four-month" moratorium originally enacted on July 13 only legally took effect on Thursday and is slated to run until Nov. 23 unless a 60-day extension is granted. He also invited the public to attend the Data Center Roundtable event at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum that was held later in the day with hopes that it will assist the commission in drafting ordinances the council will ultimately approve. A separate city open house is planned for a later date, and Boston told the county commissioners they were welcome to use "anything" they come up with through the process.

"The word is keep them evergreen, the ordinances," Hobson said.

From there, he opened up the public comment period on the proposed moratorium, and Marshalltown Area Chamber of Commerce President/CEO John Hall, whose organization is contracted to perform economic development work for the county and the city, told the commission there have been no conversations with prospective developers for projects located outside of the current city limits -- with the caveat that there are potential projects outside of the current city limits, but they would seek annexation into the city if they move forward.

Hall also recommended removing the terms "large scale" from the ordinance regarding data centers as they are not clearly defined.

Sheri Larsen, a resident of Shady Oaks Road, asked for a moratorium because she said the business entities considering development and annexation there have already done research on her family and their business. Conversely, she would like to have time to get to know them and the project they are proposing.

Layne Pieri asked if the county had received any applications for data centers at this time, and Kelley replied that they had not had any contact with any developer regarding any kind of work in unincorporated Marshall County. After asking for clarification on some of the terminology within the ordinance, Pieri seconded Hall's suggestion of defining or removing "large scale" and asked to be walked through how the moratorium could be lifted.

According to Kelley, it would involve the Supervisors passing the new regulations and lifting the moratorium, and Pieri also supported recommending waiving the second and third readings of the moratorium. After deciding to leave the waiving of subsequent readings up to the board, VonAhnen moved to recommend the ordinance with the suggested modifications, and it passed by a unanimous 3-0 vote.

Before the meeting adjourned, a general public comment period was held, and Harold Lanning of rural Marshalltown expressed his opposition to any land being annexed into the city.

"I'm sorry, but I don't think the town has done a very good job of taking care of what lies within the city limits now, and I resent the fact (of) trying to take in some agricultural land," he said. "Furthermore, I'm an old farm boy, and I just despise when I see prime farmland taken out of production for anything."

Larsen felt the county board of supervisors should have more of a say in the potential annexation process, and both Hobson and Boston agreed that rural residents would be allowed to participate in those conversations. Hall also clarified that to this point, there have been no annexation applications received yet other than an unrelated property on Odessa Drive that the city council denied, and City Zoning Administrator Clayton Ender then stepped forward.

According to Ender, no applications for annexation have been received, so nothing is currently in process.

"There certainly have been prospects and discussions with the Chamber of Commerce, but nothing has been submitted to the city," Ender said.

He added that the city prefers voluntary annexations with 100 percent approval, but otherwise, they could pursue an 80/20 with some non-consenting property owners. The primary purpose of involuntary annexation, according to state law, is avoiding the creation of an unincorporated island and creating more uniform boundaries.

The supervisors do have the opportunity to submit a resolution in favor or opposed to a proposed annexation, and Ender said that if an annexation were 100 percent voluntary, it would only need city approval. A non-consenting landowner does trigger additional review at the state level.

Contact Robert Maharry at (641) 753-6611 ext. 255 or rmaharry@timesrepublican.com.