Zoning Signal

Watch

Clermont data center moratorium: can Ordinance 2026-032 survive SB 180?

The City Council approved a data center moratorium as amended on August 25, 2026, inside the window in which Chapter 2025-190 §28 voids more restrictive local land regulation; the watch follows whether the ordinance holds, is challenged or withdrawn, and what Clermont writes in its place

The question

Can Clermont's data center moratorium survive SB 180? On August 25, 2026 the City Council took up Item No. 16, "Ordinance No. 2026-032 Final," titled "Data Centers Moratorium," which read "Consider approval to establish a 6-month moratorium on data centers." The minutes record "STATUS: APPROVED AS AMENDED" and "VOTE: ROLL CALL 5/0."

The vote came inside the window of Chapter 2025-190 §28, and nothing in the record yet tests the ordinance against it. The minutes are the agenda with each item's status and vote entered beneath it; the text of the amendment sits outside them, so the adopted length and scope are unknown until the ordinance or a later record states them.

The statute's words

Section 28(1) of Chapter 2025-190 (SB 180, 2025) reads, in part, that each county listed in the Federal Disaster Declaration for Hurricane Debby, Helene or Milton, "and each municipality within one of those counties, may not propose or adopt any moratorium on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property damaged by such hurricanes; propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations; or propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures" for site plans, development permits or development orders "before October 1, 2027, and any such moratorium or restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendment, land development regulation, or procedure shall be null and void ab initio." The subsection "applies retroactively to August 1, 2024." The section expires June 30, 2028.

Three parts of the section decide this watch:

  • Which clause reaches the ordinance. The moratorium clause names construction on "any property damaged by such hurricanes." A moratorium on a use class falls under §28 only if it counts as a more restrictive or burdensome amendment to Clermont's land development regulations. The site's SB 180 watch reads Lake County, and the cities in it, as in scope.
  • Who can test it. Under §28(3)(a) "A resident of or the owner of a business" may bring a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and on "filing of a complaint showing a violation" is entitled to a preliminary injunction "preventing implementation of the moratorium."
  • How the city can end it. Under §28(3)(b), no fees, costs or damages are awarded if, after written notice, the governing body notices an intent to repeal within 14 days and repeals within 14 days after that.

The safe harbor in §28(2) covers an application "initiated by a private party other than the county or municipality" on property that party owns. A council-adopted moratorium is not such an application.

What the record shows

  • Three moratoria in one sitting. Alongside Ordinance No. 2026-032, the Council approved Ordinance No. 2026-030 (smoke/vape shops) and Ordinance No. 2026-031 (marijuana dispensaries), each described on the agenda as a 6-month moratorium, by roll call 5/0.
  • The Council route. None of the Clermont Planning and Zoning Commission records in the corpus for July 7, July 21, August 4 or September 1, 2026 lists a data center item.
  • The county's parallel. Lake County's Planning & Zoning Board agenda for August 5, 2026 listed "Ordinance #2026-XX Data Center Moratorium," a temporary moratorium of up to twelve months for the unincorporated county that the Board of County Commissioners directed on June 23, 2026. The corpus holds no record of its adoption. If adopted, it faces the same question.
  • No test yet. No record in the corpus shows a written notice, a suit, a withdrawal or a repeal under §28 for any of these ordinances.

Resolution criteria

The watch resolves on the first record that settles Ordinance No. 2026-032 against §28:

  • It does not hold: Clermont withdraws or repeals it after a written notice under §28(3)(b), a court enters a preliminary injunction under §28(3)(a), or a court declares it void.
  • It holds to its end: the moratorium runs its adopted term, or ends when Clermont adopts data center regulations, with no notice, suit, withdrawal or repeal in the record.
  • The ground moves first: the Legislature amends §28, or a court rules on the statute itself (the Leon County litigation the site's brief follows), before either.

The outcome assessment will capture:

  • Which path, on what date, read against the six months described on the August 25 agenda
  • The amended terms of Ordinance No. 2026-032 once a record states them: length, scope and any exemptions
  • Any §28 notice or filing, the clause it invokes, and Clermont's response, in the record's words
  • The smoke/vape and dispensary moratoria, which stand on the same text and the same date
  • Lake County's moratorium, if adopted, as the county counterpart to the same question
  • Any regulations Clermont writes in the moratorium's place: a Land Development Code amendment through the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the vote at each reading

Source trail

Connected records

11 connected records

Briefs1

Patterns2

Watch3

Corridors1

Entities1

Places3