Data Center Zoning Ordinance in Solon Township
Our goal has always been to protect the community from predatory data center projects (like the one proposed by Meta in Solon Township) through legal channels. We believe that a protective and strict zoning ordinance will deter Meta and other developers from wanting to build here.
It is possible to make a protective ordinance that is legally defensible without being exclusionary, and this is what we’re advocating for.
Why Do We Need An Ordinance?
The ordinance itself should be a positive thing for the township, if done correctly. The township creating an ordinance is a positive step in the right direction.
If there are no zoning rules in place specifically addressing data centers, it would be impossible for the township to regulate a potential data center.
If done correctly, a strong zoning ordinance should protect the township from predatory data center projects. But if done incorrectly, it can open the door for predatory data center projects.
Can’t We Just Say “No?”
Unfortunately, we can’t simply say “no” to these predatory data center developments because this would be considered “exclusionary” under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.
What is Exclusionary Zoning in Michigan?
Exclusionary zoning in Michigan has the following legal definition from the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act 125.3207 Sec. 207, found on page 9:
“A zoning ordinance or zoning decision shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local unit of government or the surrounding area within the state, unless a location within the local unit of government does not exist where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.”
If developers are able to access the data center use via small and accessory data centers, then it is not considered exclusionary. There must be a reasonable path for development of some kind, but all sizes and types of data centers do not need to be permitted.
While the lawyers from Meta and The Right Place have a bigger and more daunting presence, the township could actually be sued by residents or face referendums if they do not do their due diligence in protecting residents, which we also want to help protect the township from. There are potential repercussions on the community side of this zoning ordinance, too.
Exclusionary zoning is NOT an excuse to bypass protections for the community’s water sources, property values, air quality, and more.
What Our Group Has Been Working On
Stop Solon Township Data Center has been collaborating with a pro bono environmental attorney since the publication of draft one of the data center zoning ordinance. In collaboration with our attorney, we created a red line draft of the zoning ordinance and a list of 48 revision requests.
The red line draft addresses an earlier draft of the zoning ordinance. The township releases each new draft after Planning Commission meetings are over, so each of our red line drafts became obsolete before we had a chance to give them to the township.
As additional drafts of the zoning ordinance became available, we felt it was necessary to create a list of revision requests for the subcommittee to take into consideration as they worked on each additional draft.
We sent the below documents to the Supervisor and Data Center Subcommittee on April 30:
Red Line Draft of the Zoning Ordinance
48 Revision Requests for the Zoning Ordinance
Our Meeting with the Data Center Subcommittee
Three of our volunteers met with Supervisor Bob Ellick and data center subcommittee members Mark Hoskins, Rick Sevey, and Keith Sawade on May 19 for 3.5 hours. The purpose of the meeting was to share community concerns regarding the ordinance and discuss our 48 revision requests for the ordinance.
During the meeting, we informed the subcommittee that the meeting was not private and we would be sharing what was discussed with the public. We also stated that we are not elected officials, and while we were grateful to have the opportunity to share community concerns, we were only able to speak for ourselves in that meeting.
Our meeting with the subcommittee does not eliminate the need for a working meeting with the public where the township answers resident questions.
We were three volunteers in one meeting attempting to protect the community for generations to come.
Key Takeaways from Our Meeting with Solon Township
During our meeting with the subcommittee, they vetoed several items from our list of 48 revision requests for the ordinance. However, they also confirmed that this doesn’t mean they automatically added the other 40 items in. They said they would choose those at their discretion based on the legal advice the township receives.
These are the items they vetoed in our meeting along with their reasonings:
Prohibiting Township Officials from Signing NDAs
The township vetoed prohibiting the use of NDAs in the project process.
Reason: They said this item doesn’t go in an ordinance, and NDAs are just the way business is done.
Our Rebuttal: Our attorney confirmed it is legal to prohibit NDAs in a township zoning ordinance. We reminded the township that NDAs erode public trust and they require township officials to withhold information from the public for the benefit of the company.
Just because NDAs are common in economic development, doesn’t mean it’s ethical for elected officials to sign them.
We requested via the Freedom of Information Act copies of all other NDAs the township supervisor had signed for other projects in Solon Township. None existed outside of the one signed for this data center project.
NDAs can prevent voters from evaluating taxpayer-subsidized projects before commitments are made. Michigan residents have shown strong bipartisan concern over NDA use in economic development deals, with critics saying they create a culture of secrecy.
Secrecy should be the exception, not the default, with projects that implicate public resources, water and grid capacity, roads, emergency services, and tax abatements. Transparency requirements do not prevent business development. They require public officials to remain accountable to the public before the public bears risk.
The solution is a clear ordinance banning NDAs and requiring public disclosure of contacts, financial interests, and project-related communications.
Disclosing Conflicts of Interest
The Subcommittee vetoed our request to require disclosures of conflicts of interest in the zoning ordinance.
Reason: The township stated that they already do a great job of recusing themselves from certain votes, so it’s not necessary to include a requirement in the ordinance to disclose conflicts of interest. The township also stated that they can’t require a developer to disclose this information in their application materials.
Our Rebuttal: Our attorney confirmed that it is legal to require an applicant to include conflict of interest disclosures in their application materials.
Disclosing conflicts of interest is a basic procedural safeguard. This becomes particularly important when there may be overlapping interests from utility companies, economic development organizations, landowners, and public officials.
Without disclosure of conflicts of interest, residents cannot judge whether recommendations are based on public welfare or institutional incentives.
Requiring Public Water and Wastewater
The Subcommittee vetoed our request to require data center developers to tap into city water and wastewater sources.
Reason: The Subcommittee stated that Solon Township is willing to allow the data center developers to drill their own private wells because they don’t want to give the City of Cedar Springs access to any of our land on the west side of US-131.
Our Rebuttal: When asked if it’s safer or more beneficial for the community to allow data center developers to drill their own private wells, they responded that it’s better because they don’t want Cedar Springs on our side of the highway.
Ordinances are supposed to protect the community, not spite other municipalities.
Under the special land use approval, draft five of the zoning ordinance requires medium-scale and hyperscale data centers to connect to municipal water and wastewater sources UNLESS their application shows low water usage. The Planning Commission would then be able to authorize alternative water and sewer facilities:
“In the event a medium-scale or hyperscale data center would demonstrate as part of a special land use application a low water usage, the Planning Commission may authorize alternative water and sewer facilities if justified by the facts and if the standards in the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable laws are satisfied.”
This is a clear loophole for hyperscale data center developers under the special land use approval.
Project Size in the Township
Draft five of the zoning ordinance allows for a maximum of 800 acres of data centers in Solon Township, which is conveniently the size of the proposed project.
When Solon Township wanted to keep out solar panel farms, they limited individual project sizes to 200 acres, with a total limit of 800 acres maximum in the township. We’re requesting that they reduce the maximum acreage for individual data center projects in Solon Township to 200 acres.
This large discrepancy between solar panels and data centers could actually open the township up to lawsuits from solar panel farm developers, because you’re giving a significantly larger portion of the township to individual projects that are exponentially more harmful to the community.
Baseline Water Testing of Nearby Homes
The requirement for the applicant to conduct baseline testing of all nearby wells is only a requirement under the special land use application.
We’re requesting the Planning Commission make this a requirement throughout the entire ordinance, not just for special land use approval.
Ongoing Emissions Reporting
We asked the Subcommittee to require data center developers to maintain a publicly accessible website with monthly reporting on all air emissions, water discharges, and more.
Reason: The Subcommittee vetoed this request because they said they can’t require applicants to disclose trade secrets to the public.
Our Rebuttal: Emissions are not trade secrets.
Trade secrets are things like building interior layouts and hardware design, not matters of public interest like emissions and water usage.
Digital Mining
The Subcommittee told us they were banning all digital mining in draft four of the ordinance. However, draft five allows digital mining uses as accessory or small-scale uses.
Note: The noisy data center in Dowagiac is a 30 MW data center for digital mining. The developers of the data center in Solon Township signed a 1 GW deal with Consumers Energy in August 2025.
We’re requesting the data center ordinance ban digital mining entirely, like the subcommittee told us they would.
Additional Concerns About the Data Center Zoning Ordinance for Solon Township
After collaborating with an environmental attorney for several months, we strongly feel that draft five of the ordinance is lacking the protections our community needs.
In addition to all the listed concerns about the data center zoning ordinance in Solon Township, we also have the following concerns:
- The subcommittee told us they want the developer to go through the “special land use” process. The special land use section of the ordinance contains many loopholes. Protections in the ordinance could be bypassed thanks to wording like, “unless specifically permitted as part of the special land use approval.” It’s also important to note that the developers don’t have to rezone the agricultural parcels to apply for special land use.
- The township is creating an ordinance specifically for this one identified project, not for the general use. Ordinances are supposed to regulate for the use in the entire township, not one project. They’re only considering the parameters of this particular project, not the possibilities of additional data center developments in the future.
- The township is confident that they can handle this project the way they’ve always done business: based on people’s word. They are saying that they can create a more lenient ordinance, then demand more from the developer during the negotiation process after receiving an application.
- The township added Artificial intelligence (AI) to the definitions portion of the ordinance, but did not add guidelines for it as a data center use throughout the ordinance. Artificial intelligence data centers operate much like a digital mining data center: noisy, hot, and 24/7 processing. Not implementing specific rules in the ordinance to regulate AI processing could potentially open a loophole for the developers to skirt by the regulations altogether since they could argue that AI was not specifically addressed.
- The allowed construction times were expanded to 6am – 8pm.
- The ordinance only requires 500ft setbacks from adjoining residential property lines.
Note: Lyon Township is currently under threat of a lawsuit by Microsoft for attempting to request more from Microsoft even though their application meets the minimum requirements listed in the ordinance.
Additionally, residents deserve a public working meeting where people are able to ask questions to the township and most importantly, receive answers from the decision makers themselves. Public hearings do not legally require the township to answer questions.
Where is Solon Township at with the Data Center Zoning Ordinance Today?
At the Planning Commission meeting on June 24, members voted to table discussing or voting on the ordinance until the next meeting on July 22. They stated that the data center ordinance subcommittee will meet at least once to make further changes between now and then. Residents pressed the Planning Commission to enact stronger protections in the ordinance and extend the moratorium another six months.
We are grateful that the Planning Commission agreed that the zoning ordinance needs further improvements. However, this also kicks the can down the road in the terms of the ordinance and risks the cause losing steam. Our presence, involvement, and advocacy work for strengthening the ordinance is far from over.
How You Can Take Action Today
The most effective thing you can do now is continue to attend township meetings, make a public comment, email the township your concerns, mail letters to the township about your concerns, and if possible, meet in person with township officials to share your concerns.
There’s power in numbers.