Supreme Court: Village May Pause Data Center Review Under Moratorium
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Lordstown does not have to review a developer's plan for four data centers while the village's moratorium is in effect.
The village of Lordstown does not have to review a developer's site plan for a data center complex while a local moratorium on data centers is in place, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Oct. 20.
The unanimous, unsigned opinion in State ex rel. Bristolville 25 Developer LLC v. Lordstown rejected the company's request for a court order forcing the Trumbull County village to act on its plan, according to Court News Ohio, the court's news service.
"Under the moratorium, the village is under no legal duty to proceed with a site-plan review of Bristolville's project," the court wrote.
Plan filed weeks before ban
Bristolville 25 Developer bought land in an industrially zoned area of Lordstown from BHGH Properties in February 2025, Court News Ohio reported. The company planned four three-story data centers and related structures there.
In October 2025, the company delivered a draft site plan, the first step toward a zoning permit, and emailed it to the village solicitor the same day. The next day, the village's planning and zoning administrator told the company a data center ban was pending, according to the court's summary.
Village council adopted the ban in November 2025, about two weeks later. In January 2026, the village replaced the ban with a six-month moratorium. Before it was set to expire July 4, council extended it through the end of 2026, Court News Ohio reported.
Court: permit steps not finished
Bristolville asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the village to review its plan under the zoning rules in place when it was submitted, which did not prohibit data centers.
The justices disagreed. Court News Ohio reported the court found the company had not completed the steps the village requires before someone can apply for a zoning permit, so the village had no duty to consider the proposal. Lordstown's process, as described by the court, includes review by the village engineer and officials, detailed utility, stormwater and safety planning, written comments, and final approval by the planning and zoning commission before a permit can be issued.
The company relied on two earlier Ohio rulings, Gibson v. Oberlin from 1960 and State ex rel. Fairmount Center Co. v. Arnold from 1941. The court said those cases were different because the property owners there had already met the requirements for a permit, which Bristolville had not, according to Court News Ohio.
The court said the village has no duty to act on the request "unless the moratorium is unenforceable as to Bristolville's submission," and concluded that "relators have not shown a clear legal right to have Bristolville's site plan reviewed."
The case is No. 2025-1497, 2026-Ohio-4073.