Developer asks court to block data center moratorium

Through his company NSI, A.1 LLC, developer Trent Overhue on Sept. 17 sued the city of Springfield in Greene County Circuit Court, seeking to block the city’s 120-day moratorium on data center project development.

“As the developer, I followed the city’s established development process and obtained written zoning verification on two separate occasions confirming that our proposed headquarters office could include a data-processing center in the basement to support our business operations,” Overhue told Springfield Business Journal in a text message late Friday afternoon. “Despite those confirmations, the city rushed to impose a moratorium that appears specifically designed to block an already-entitled use. I have a serious problem with the city changing its position after we relied upon its written determinations and invested substantial time and resources in the project. Unfortunately, the city’s actions left us with no reasonable alternative but to take the necessary steps to protect our rights as the property owner.”

SBJ is seeking comment from city Director of Public Information and Civic Engagement Cora Scott regarding the lawsuit. Two messages were not immediately returned with written comment late Friday afternoon. City officials typically do not comment on pending litigation, past SBJ reporting shows.

Overhue purchased a 2.8-acre parcel at 2900 S. National Ave. with a goal of placing a corporate office in one of two buildings on the site, according to past SBJ reporting.

Overhue’s preapplication meeting prompted Springfield City Council’s 120-day freeze on considering data center applications, past reporting shows.

That site has two vacant commercial buildings. They total almost 31,000 square feet, according to a description of the property on commercial real estate website LoopNet.

Overhue told SBJ earlier this week the office would start out by employing 10-15 people. The basement of one of the buildings would house what he characterized as an edge data center – a small, low-latency facility. Overhue said it would draw 5 to 10 megawatts of power.

Overhue said he performed due diligence before purchasing the building to house the headquarters of Lumon Solutions LLC, a company in which he is a partner. Lumon Solutions is currently finishing up a data center project in the rural Marshfield area.

According to Thursday’s 31-page, six-count lawsuit petition, Overhue’s company is asking the court to find that the data center moratorium ordinance, adopted by City Council on June 29, constitutes “zoning legislation in substance,” failing to comply with Missouri law for municipal planning and zoning.

The suit also argues that the moratorium, currently set to expire Nov. 17, according to the petition, “was not validly enacted” under provisions of Springfield city charter that govern City Council emergency bills and one-reading bills.

The suit alleges that NSI, A.1 LLC “preceded through predevelopment review and incurred substantial planning, design, professional and project-development expense in reliance on PD 251’s text and city staff communications” before the city “changed course.”

The moratorium, according to the lawsuit, “now denies [Overhue’s company] access to the ordinary application process during a short and commercially significant development window.”

Overhue’s company wants Judge Nathan Taylor, who is overseeing the case according to Missouri online court records, to enjoin the city from “applying or enforcing” the moratorium ordinance. The lawsuit also asks the court to make sure any injunction does not prevent Overhue’s company from going forward with its data center project under the existing Planned Development 251 zoning at the site. The lawsuit asks that any injunction ordered by the court “not approve the [data center] project, guarantee utility service or capacity, waive completeness requirements or fees, adjudicate the ultimate interpretation of PD 251 or prevent enforcement of otherwise-valid law.”

The suit also asks the court to find that the city violated Missouri’s open-records statute, dubbed the Sunshine Law. Overhue’s company maintains that a public records request filed with the city “remains active and was not withdrawn” under a provision of the Sunshine Law allowing a government entity to consider records requests withdrawn under certain circumstances, for example, if fees associated with a Sunshine request aren’t paid within 90 days, or 150 days, in cases where the fees would top $1,000.

The lawsuit states that Overhue’s company wants the court to order the city to produce “all nonexempt records” linked to its records request and that the city preserve “responsive records” as required by the Sunshine Law.

Overhue’s company is also asking for it to be awarded a civil penalty, attorney’s fees and court costs as provided in the Sunshine Law for instances when a court finds a violation of the state's open government and records statute.