Green Township OH moratorium on all new development (2026)

Green Township, Ohio — MORATORIUM ON ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT passed by the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, with the express purpose, per the source, 'to prevent additional AI data center projects from starting in the township.' SCOPE IS THE DEFINING FEATURE AND IT IS UNIQUE IN THIS DATASET. Every other moratorium indexed here is use-specific — data centers, or data centers plus crypto mining (Bemidji MN one-year data center moratorium (2026)), or data centers plus solar and on-site generation (West Mahanoy Township PA curative amendment, data centers and solar (2026)), or data centers plus battery energy storage (Leominster MA, Elkhart IN). GREEN TOWNSHIP PAUSED EVERY USE. THE PROBABLE REASON IS INSTRUMENTAL, and it is recorded as inference: Ohio TOWNSHIPS exercise zoning authority under R.C. Chapter 519, which is narrower than the municipal authority under Chapter 713, and a township whose zoning resolution contains no data center definition may lack a clean mechanism to single the use out. A BLANKET DEVELOPMENT PAUSE REACHES THE TARGET WITHOUT REQUIRING A DEFINITION. That neatly sidesteps the definitional failure mode recorded across this dataset: Poway CA AI data center ban ordinance, first reading (2026) (workload-based 'AI data center' prohibition, definition not obtained, recharacterisation risk); Marysville KS 12-month data center moratorium (2026) (enumerated inclusion list plus express server-room exclusion needed to be administrable); Clayton OH 365-day data center moratorium (2026) (a data center admissible as a warehouse-type use under an undefined code); Port Angeles WA six-month data center moratorium (2026) (Councilmember Schwab arguing the city should stop defining 'data center' and regulate the impacts of large resource users instead). THE COUNTERVAILING EXPOSURE IS EQUALLY DISTINCTIVE: a moratorium justified by concern about ONE use but applied to ALL uses halts housing, retail, agriculture-adjacent and every unrelated project, and is correspondingly vulnerable to the argument that it is not reasonably related to its stated purpose — the tailoring objection. It is also the measure most likely to generate an aggrieved applicant with no connection to data centers at all, which is the profile of plaintiff that produced the litigation recorded at Raeden v. Gibraltar MI data center moratorium challenge (2026) and the capitulation at Inver Grove Heights MN data center moratorium amended under lawsuit (2026). NO CHALLENGE IS REPORTED. OHIO CONTEXT: at least 138 Ohio municipalities and townships had active data center moratoriums as of 2026-09-17, with 23 effective bans — the most extensive local response in the country, of which this dataset indexes only a handful. NOT ESTABLISHED: THE TERM LENGTH (no duration is reported, which for a blanket development moratorium is the single most important missing fact), the vote, the date, the resolution number, and WHICH GREEN TOWNSHIP — Ohio has several, and the reporting outlet (WTOV9, Steubenville) points to the eastern Ohio / Ohio Valley area.