LORDSTOWN, Ohio - The Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber has offered to step in and gather neutral experts to help Lordstown officials navigate the complexities of the data center industry amid an ongoing legal dispute and an impending ban on such facilities within the village.

In a statement released Tuesday, the business advocacy organization proposed convening third-party experts to assist village council members in gathering information.

Guy Coviello, president and CEO of the Regional Chamber, said the organization appreciates the council’s desire to create space to learn more about the industry.

“Stepping back from a ban ensures the village has the time needed to fully understand a rapidly evolving and technically complex industry,” Coviello said. “The Chamber would be happy to assist by convening neutral, third-party experts and facilitating those discussions to help ensure well-informed decisions.”

The offer comes as the Village of Lordstown faces a lawsuit filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by Bristolville 25 Developer LLC and BHGH Properties LLC. The developers are seeking a court order to force the village to review site plans for a proposed data center.

Lordstown Village Council voted 6-0 on Nov. 4 to ban data centers following complaints from residents regarding potential noise, energy consumption and water usage. That ban was scheduled to take effect on Wednesday.

However, the Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to repeal the ban before it was set to take effect.

The decision comes after the council was given advice from the village solicitor and of two attorneys defending the Village in the Ohio Supreme Court case.

Despite every councilperson voting to repeal the outright ban, there are still concerns.

Instead, the council will vote on imposing a 180-day moratorium that would pause processing and grant permit applications for data centers.

The developers argued they filed their application on Oct. 20, before the ban was passed, and therefore have the right to proceed under the zoning regulations in effect at that time. They claim village officials have refused to process the submission to stall until the ban becomes active.

Village Solicitor Matthew Ries has disputed claims that the village is refusing to review the plans. Ries previously stated the application was incomplete and was missing necessary engineering information, such as stormwater management plans and utility details. Village officials also noted that one proposed building was situated directly over a village waterline.

The developers have asked the state Supreme Court to deny the village’s motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the village is demanding materials required for a later stage of the approval process.

Residents have expressed strong opposition to the development. During the Nov. 4 meeting where the ban was passed, more than 100 people attended, with some citing concerns about noise levels and the potential impact on utility rates for those on fixed incomes.

The Regional Chamber, which represents nearly 3,000 members across the Mahoning Valley, indicated its goal is to facilitate a process that leads to decisions based on a full understanding of the technology and its economic implications.