Jefferson County BZA affirms administrator’s finding that proposed JPG data center qualifies as a permitted I2 use

The Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals on April 24, 2026 affirmed the county zoning administrator’s Feb. 25 determination that a proposed JPG Redevelopment LLC data center campus may be treated as a permitted use in the county’s I2 (heavy industrial) zone.

The hearing centered on whether the administrator correctly applied the county Unified Development Ordinance’s four-part test for unlisted uses — intensity, character, accessory uses/structures and intent — before classifying the land use as similar to permitted I2 activities. The appeal was brought by resident Deborah Jones and argued by attorney Loren White; JPG Redevelopment (represented by attorney Andy Metsel and representative Daniel Ford) defended the administrator’s decision. Pat McGraw, county attorney, opened the hearing and explained the limited legal question the Board must decide: did the administrator follow the UDO’s required procedure and reasonably apply the criteria?

Loren White said the administrator’s Feb. 25 ruling was legally insufficient because it lacked detailed findings tying the project’s actual operational impacts to the UDO’s criteria. White described the project in the appellant’s filings as a 549-acre development area on a larger site (the record provides multiple acreage figures) with a campus totaling millions of square feet across multiple buildings. He and other appellants pointed to the county staff report’s own summaries — continuous 24/7 operations, on-site backup generation, cooling and wastewater systems, battery storage risks, and both low-frequency and intermittent high-decibel noise — as evidence the proposal raises discretionary public-safety, environmental and compatibility questions that, White argued, should be addressed through a special-exception (conditional-use) process rather than by an administrative classification as a permitted use.

JPG Redevelopment’s counsel countered that the property has been zoned I2 since 1998 and that the UDO’s list of permitted I2 uses is broad; that the administrator reviewed development-plan materials and applied the UDO’s intensity, character, accessory and intent factors; and that, under the ordinance as written, the administrator may deem an unlisted use sufficiently similar to one or more permitted uses. Daniel Ford and multiple supporters in the audience framed the proposal as a major economic opportunity that would boost the tax base and create construction and long-term jobs.

More than 200 members of the public signed up to speak and the Board heard roughly three dozen individual oral comments (the record contains dozens more). Public testimony split along familiar lines: supporters emphasized jobs, revenue for county services and redevelopment of the retired proving ground; opponents raised concerns about transparency in permitting and incentives, large-scale water and electric demand, noise (including persistent low-frequency hum), fire risks from batteries and fuel, potential wastewater impacts, proximity to nearby conservation lands (Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge was mentioned repeatedly) and the adequacy of emergency response capacity.

After public comment the Board discussed whether the administrator applied the four UDO factors in a manner consistent with the ordinance. Board members adopted the staff report into the record as their findings of fact and then voted to affirm the administrator’s determination. The motion to affirm carried; the Board closed the hearing and adjourned.

What the vote means: By affirming the administrator the Board left in place the determination that, under the UDO as written, the proposed data center is sufficiently similar to permitted I2 uses so that the administrative development-plan review and the county’s development standards — rather than a special-exception procedure — govern next steps. That outcome does not in itself authorize construction: the project will still require the usual building, environmental and utility permits and compliance with development standards. Appellants may pursue judicial review as provided by Indiana law if they choose.

Key dates and numbers mentioned in the hearing record: the zoning administrator’s determination was dated Feb. 25, 2026; the appeal was filed Mar. 27, 2026 and amended Apr. 21, 2026; the applicant’s filings describe a 549-acre data-center development area on a larger proving-ground parcel (multiple acreage figures appear in the record) and the project materials in the record reference about 7.1 million square feet of proposed building area (figures and parcel counts differ among documents on file).

Next steps: The Board’s action affirms the administrative classification. If the appellant seeks judicial review, that would be pursued in state court. Separately, county officials and members of the public said they will continue to press for information and, if desired, pursue legislative changes to the UDO or consideration of moratoria through the planning commission and county council — procedures that must follow the county’s ordinance process and are not decided by the BZA.

Quotes from the hearing:
"We are here tonight on an appeal of a permitted use determination...the relevant issues for the board's determination under the unified development ordinance for tonight is whether or not the zoning administrator examined the following criteria...intensity, character, accessory uses and structures, and intent." — Pat McGraw, county attorney
"A use that combines 24/7 operations, power generation, battery, fire risk, wastewater treatment, and hazardous regulated materials is materially different than an ordinary warehouse and requires BZA-level safeguards." — Loren White, counsel for the appellant
"When the ordinance was put in place it created the pathway for unlisted uses; Mr. Klein applied that test and the answer was yes — the data center fits in I2." — Andy Metsel, counsel for JPG Redevelopment

Ending: The Board affirmed the administrator’s Feb. 25, 2026 determination; additional permitting and regulatory reviews remain for the developer. Appellants retain the right to judicial review under Indiana law.