A record-based review of Bradley County’s April 2026 data-center zoning rules and SDCL’s pending challenge to their adoption and enforcement.
Bradley County adopted new data-center and cryptocurrency-mining rules on April 20, 2026. The adopted text limits those uses to the I-2 Special Impact Industrial District and adds substantial separation requirements. SDCL Tennessee Propco LLC, owner of the proposed MidSpan site, is challenging the rules in Bradley County Chancery Court on procedural and constitutional grounds. On October 5, county leadership reported that insurance coverage for the defense had been denied and said the county intended to continue defending the rules. The merits have not been adjudicated in the reviewed record.
These facts can be tied to the county record, the filed complaint, or identified legal authorities without deciding the lawsuit.
The official April 20 record includes Resolution 2026-08 as adopted. The text adds definitions and regulations for cryptocurrency mining and data centers and places them as permitted uses in the I-2 Special Impact Industrial District rather than the I-1 General Industrial District.
Sources:MID-002
The adopted resolution states that cryptocurrency-mining and data-center sites may not be adjacent to, or within 3,000 feet of, specified residential and agricultural zoning districts and may not be within 3,000 feet of an existing residence, school, or church.
Sources:MID-002
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and alleges defects involving planning-commission review, public notice, open-meetings requirements, due process, equal protection, and the practical exclusion of data centers. Those allegations are claims by the plaintiff, not findings by the court.
Sources:MID-004
County Mayor D. Gary Davis told the Commission on September 21 that the county would defend the regulations adopted by the elected Commission. Local 3 later reported that Davis told the October 5 Commission meeting the county insurer had denied its claim related to the lawsuit and that he had asked the attorney to move forward with the defense while asking the Commission to do the same. The county’s October 5 minutes and linked video were not yet posted when Placeward checked on October 7.
These are litigation positions asserted by SDCL. They are presented so the dispute can be understood without treating them as established fact.
SDCL alleges that the public notice and earlier planning materials contemplated data centers as a use permitted on review in I-1, while the substitute adopted April 20 moved them to I-2 and imposed additional separation requirements without the process SDCL says Tennessee law required.
Sources:MID-004
SDCL argues that the combination of I-2-only zoning and 3,000-foot separation requirements leaves no realistic private site in Bradley County for a data center and therefore functions as a de facto exclusion.
The complaint says SDCL acquired the MidSpan property after due diligence and after receiving a county planning letter that it interprets as confirming I-1 zoning suitability for a large-scale data center.
Sources:MID-004
The applicable legal standards are ultimately for the court to interpret and apply to the actual county record.
Tennessee Code § 13-7-105 addresses county zoning amendments, including planning-commission consideration and public-hearing notice. The central factual question is which version of the MidSpan-related amendment went through which procedural steps.
Sources:MID-011
The Tennessee Comptroller’s guidance explains statewide open-meetings principles, including public access and notice concepts. Whether the April process violated those requirements depends on the specific facts and is disputed in the pending case.
Sources:MID-012
In Robertson County v. Browning-Ferris Industries, the Tennessee Court of Appeals discussed limits on county zoning authority where a lawful business was totally excluded. That case provides context for SDCL’s theory but does not by itself establish that Bradley County’s rules are equivalent or unlawful.
Sources:MID-014
Expand chronology, community concerns, research priorities, verification methods, and related guidance as needed.
The sequence is important because the legal challenge focuses heavily on what was reviewed, noticed, substituted, adopted, and later challenged.
The complaint describes a Planning Commission discussion that added data-center concepts to a cryptocurrency-related zoning amendment. The exact recommendation and legal effect remain disputed.
Sources:MID-004
The complaint reproduces a notice describing an amendment involving I-1 General Industrial treatment of data centers and related uses.
Sources:MID-004
The Commission adopted Resolution 2026-08, placing the regulated uses in I-2 and adding separation requirements.
Sources:MID-002
SDCL Tennessee Propco LLC filed its Chancery Court challenge.
Sources:MID-004
The current assessment should move when stronger records, rulings, studies, or enforceable commitments materially change the evidence.
These are the highest-value documents to seek through public records, project disclosures, regulatory filings, or the court record.
