INDIANTOWN – A pair of Village Council members failed to gain momentum on a second stab at convincing their colleagues and staff that a pause on data center applications would not put the municipality at odds with the Florida Legislature’s recent bills aimed at controlling such developments and limiting more restrictive land uses.
The Council previously sought the advice of Village Attorney Wade Vose last month on a moratorium after scores of local residents had protested the Village’s preliminary review of a data center application submitted earlier this year by Nelson Ferreira, which he actually withdrew on April 29. Indiantown civic activist Melissa Hague had spurred its members on during the June 11 Council meeting, citing examples of a few other Florida communities either implementing or proposing data center moratoriums. Wade shot that idea down, however, insisting such a move would put the municipality in direct violation of Senate Bills 180 and 484 and leave it open to potential lawsuits by property owners and developers. Hague repeated her request during the July 13 budget workshop.
“I’m coming back asking for an administrative pause on data centers,” she said. “It’s already been admitted on media that we don’t know what we’re dealing with. If we don’t know, not having an administrative pause to go through the motions of finding out and looking at land development regulations is negligent. I know there’s pressure behind the scenes not to have that happen, but the people want it to happen, and that’s who you represent.”
A few minutes later, Councilwoman Karen Onsager – who’d supported Hague’s request the previous month – again broached the topic, this time couching it in the milder terminology of a “pause.”
“I’ve asked for an informative community meeting,” she said. “In light of that meeting, I move that the Village of Indiantown establish a 90-day administrative pause on the acceptance, processing and approval of all new applications for large-load data center development projects. During the 90-day period, I request the Village staff proceed with the informational meeting I requested, including technical experts, representatives from the South Florida Water Management District, utility providers and relevant staff so that the Council and our residents can better understand the current and projected demands on our water and electrical infrastructure.”
Councilwoman Onsager emphasized more than once that her proposed pause was intended to provide the Council additional time to gather facts, evaluate data and consider potential solutions to community concerns while putting off any potential Board decisions on such applications until after the current election cycle.
“To be clear, I am not proposing any amendments to our land development regulations nor am I seeking to impose additional restrictions or requirements on the application process at this time,” she added in a nod to the aforementioned legislation. “I am simply requesting sufficient time for the Council to conduct due-diligence and make informed decisions regarding future industrial development applications based on a thorough understanding of the facts and the infrastructure implications.”
Rather than offering a second to Onsager’s motion, however, Councilwoman Vernestine Palmer wanted to negotiate the length of that pause with her colleague.
“I think the administrative pause should be more than 90 days,” she said. “I think we should have at least a 12-to-18-month administrative pause so we can get all the information concerning it. No one is saying we’re against it or for it; we just want to know what’s going on so we can make an informed decision and [ensure] the LDRs have some safeguards in it for us.”
That failed to sway Onsager, who knew her motion was already going against Vose’s prior legal advice.
“I asked for a 90-day pause because a 90-day pause does give us time to collect information, have the meeting, get some important data and not necessarily bring down problems for our community,” she explained. “We can’t afford to be sued for doing things wrong –12 to 18 months is restrictive. We’re also in the middle of an election. I think that we should vote for a stop until we can get whoever’s here seated and they can get familiar with the actual facts and then make that choice.”
For her part, Councilwoman Angelina Perez, looked to Vose for advice rather than make any comments. The latter admitted nothing had changed for him since June.
“It’s my legal opinion that such an administrative pause – whether it’s 90 days or 12 months – would be a violation of Senate Bill 180, which we discussed at length previously,” he said. “My legal opinion remains the same.”
Vose acknowledged receiving an email from a local land use attorney that same afternoon with an ominous warning.
“He does represent multiple developers within the Village,” he explained. “He emailed me precisely about this matter and advised me that SB 180 would prohibit anything along the lines of a regulation that would inhibit the process of applications for development.”
After Village Manager Taryn Kryzda confirmed the industrially zoned lands within the Village allowed data centers as a permitted use, Mayor Carmine Dipaolo warned his colleagues about another risk in offending state officials.
“Basically, what we’re saying to the Legislature is we don’t care about your house bill – the same Legislature that’s given us over $120 million – and we’re asking for more,” he said. “If the residents had to pay the $120 million that we’ve received, it’d be 100 years before they had clean water.”
Kryzda concurred.
“My experience is, when local government goes against the state or the federal government, the first thing they look to do is withhold funding,” she said.
After further Board discussion, Mayor Dipaolo called for a second to Onsager’s motion, which was not forthcoming. After her motion died, Councilwoman Onsager confirmed with Kryzda that her desired community meeting would be scheduled for Saturday, Aug. 8.