Two Indiana data centers, one state, opposite timelines

Two data center projects, both in Indiana, both inside the same window. One broke ground on a $10 billion, 1-gigawatt campus. The other was withdrawn before it ever reached a council vote. The asset class was identical. The state was the same. The difference was the entitlement timeline, and specifically when in that timeline the political decision got made.

This is the most underappreciated variable in site selection: not whether a jurisdiction will say yes, but at what point in the calendar the yes or no becomes structurally inevitable. Here are the two timelines side by side.

Lebanon: the decision was made in 2023, before Meta was attached to the site

The Lebanon project sits inside the LEAP district (the Limitless Exploration / Advanced Pace innovation district in Boone County). The critical entitlement event there did not happen when Meta announced. It happened in August 2023, when the Lebanon City Council unanimously adopted the LEAP Planned Unit Development with an Industrial Mega Site subdistrict.

That single vote made data centers a permitted use in the district, by right. No conditional use permit. No variance. No discretionary public hearing on each project. The council eliminated the entitlement risk for every future data center in the district in one act, well before any specific data center tenant was attached to the parcel.

Everything after that was execution, not entitlement:

• November 2024: the council unanimously approves Meta's incentive package, a multi-billion-dollar arrangement that reflected deep institutional alignment.
• December 2024: the State Budget Committee approves an additional $60 million for LEAP infrastructure, on top of the roughly $1 billion the state had already invested in land, roads, water, and utility corridors.
• August 2025: the Lebanon Plan Commission approves Meta's 1,500-acre development plan. Because data centers are a permitted use in the subdistrict, this is an administrative approval. No public hearing, no discretionary vote.
• February 2026: Meta breaks ground on a $10 billion, 1-gigawatt campus.

By the time Meta was a public name on the site, the entitlement question had been settled since August 2023. The only live variable left was power delivery: a 1,200 MW generation filing by the Wabash Valley Power Alliance, approved at MISO, whose physical transmission infrastructure targets a December 2026 completion. That is an infrastructure-execution risk, not an entitlement risk. It affects an in-service date; it does not threaten approval.

Franklin Township: the decision was made at the podium, in real time, against them

Franklin Township ran the opposite timeline. There was no purpose-built PUD waiting. The parcels carried agricultural and small-commercial zoning, and the data center campus required a full discretionary rezoning: petition 2025-CZN-814, filed in March 2025.

That meant the entitlement decision was not pre-settled. It was going to be made live, in public, across a sequence of hearings:

• March 2025: rezoning petition filed to move 467.66 acres from agricultural/commercial designations to commercial-special.
• April 10, 2025: the petition appears on the hearing-examiner agenda.
• June 12, 2025: the public hearing opens; the case is continued after public testimony and remonstrance.
• June 26, 2025: the hearing examiner recommends approval. A recommendation is not the end.
• August 20, 2025: the Metropolitan Development Commission approves the rezoning 8-1.
• August through September 2025: formal remonstrance and council opposition harden; the district councilor uses the call-down to force a full council vote.
• September 22, 2025: the petitioner withdraws before that vote. The withdrawal is formalized in the record on October 1.

Notice what MDC approval bought: nothing decisive. Because Indianapolis's council holds a call-down mechanism, the MDC's 8-1 vote was the middle of the process, not the end. The decision that mattered was always going to be made at the council, in front of an organized opposition that had months to assemble.

Why did one get built while the other was withdrawn?

It is tempting to read these two outcomes as Indiana being friendly to data centers in one place and hostile in another. That is the wrong lesson. Both jurisdictions are in the same state, in the same political climate, with the same statewide utility-cost debate in the background.

The difference is when the entitlement decision was structurally locked:

When the decision is locked early, through a by-right designation made before any specific project, the developer is running execution. When the decision is made live at the podium, the developer is running a campaign, and every hearing is a venue where organized opposition can apply pressure. The calendar is not neutral. It either works for you or it works against you, and that is set by the entitlement mechanism, not by the merits of the project.

What should a screening team ask before committing?

This is exactly what a pre-commitment site read is for. Before budget moves, "is this site zoned for my use?" is the wrong first question. The right one is harder: what is the approval mechanism, how many discretionary decision points sit between filing and final approval, and is the critical political decision already locked or still live?

A by-right district with the decision locked years ago reads very differently from an agricultural parcel that needs a discretionary rezoning in front of a council with a call-down. Same asset class, same state, radically different timeline risk. A team that reads the timeline before committing knows which game it is playing before it spends the first dollar.

Indiana ran both experiments side by side. The record is public. The variable that decided the outcome was knowable in advance.

My bet is that the spread between these two site types keeps widening. If a by-right district site and a discretionary-rezoning site pencil out the same in your model, the model is mispricing one of them, and in 2026 it is almost always mispricing the second one.

This analysis is a source-cited research summary drawn from public records, not legal advice. It can contain errors and should be verified independently before any investment decision.