The Comprehensive Plan Argument: Read the Whole Plan
The second lawsuit against the Mason County data center relies heavily on Mason County’s Comprehensive Plan — arguing that the rezoning conflicts with the Plan’s goals, particularly Theme 6’s protections for farmland and rural character. The plaintiffs’ attorneys selectively quote from the Plan’s agricultural objectives and ask the court to treat those passages as a veto of the Fiscal Court’s decision.
There is one problem with that argument. It requires you to read only part of the Plan.
The plaintiffs’ own lawyers acknowledged in the Planning Commission record that the Plan “can be interpreted to be both supported and unsupported” by this rezoning. The Planning Commission’s staff report likewise acknowledged that language supporting the project coexists with language that does not — and that, on balance, the Plan’s economic development goals support approval.
The Planning Commission and the Fiscal Court reviewed the entire Plan. They reached the same conclusion: the juice is worth the squeeze.
Here is what a full reading of the Comprehensive Plan actually shows. The data center advances infrastructure investment directed toward areas with existing capacity. It funds water and wastewater modernization at private expense — directly addressing Objective 1-2-A’s call to strengthen Mason County’s water systems. It expands broadband connectivity that Objective 1-2-C identifies as essential for Mason County’s future. It funds the road improvements Objective 4-C envisions but that county budgets cannot deliver. It creates the economic anchor that Objectives 3-E and 3-F identify as the path to retaining young professionals and building an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Regarding the farmland argument — the project affects 594 acres of prime farmland, which is 1.7% of Mason County’s total. Of the full 2,180-acre site, only 250 acres will be covered by impervious surfaces. The remaining 1,930 acres will be stabilized with sod and engineered stormwater management — protecting topsoil more effectively than the cash grain production it replaces. The full analysis is available at s4-mc.com/data-center-complan-compliance/.
The Comprehensive Plan was written with full awareness of Mason County’s forty-year economic decline — $64 million in annual agricultural sales lost, nearly 2,500 jobs lost, and a 7.6% population decline. It was not written to lock that decline in place. It was written to provide a framework for reversing it. The Planning Commission and the Fiscal Court applied that framework correctly.
The lawsuit asks a court to replace the plaintiffs’ selective reading of the Plan with the judgment of the elected and appointed bodies that studied it in full. That is not how planning law works in Kentucky — and it is not how Mason County’s future should be decided.
The folks behind this lawsuit have deep pockets and can afford to base their future on yearning for a time before Mason County lost tobacco, dairy, and several major industries. This second lawsuit proves large legal bills don’t faze them as they yearn for an economic foundation that was — but is no more. Will you speak up and let them know not everyone in Mason County can afford to live in the past?
Lets review the relative size of the data center project to keep the size of the project in perspective
