Faircrest Data Center (Perry Township)
Panattoni's 240-megawatt, 100+-acre data center along Faircrest Street SW, with Amazon confirmed by local officials as the operator. Perry Township, Canton, and Stark County all approved a 75%/30-year property tax abatement (Perry gets $2.75M upfront) between March and June 2026. Construction is underway, with about 670 trade workers expected during the build. On September 1, 2026, four residents sued in Stark County Common Pleas Court, alleging Perry Township's noise ordinance and tax-exemption approval both violated Ohio law and the Open Meetings Act - allegations not yet ruled on by any court.
Developer
Panattoni Development Company (California-based); Amazon confirmed by local officials as the operating end user
Site
100+ acres along Faircrest Street SW and Kropf Avenue, Perry Township - within the Perry Township/Canton Joint Economic Development District (JEDD)
Project type
Hyperscale data center (240 MW) - construction underway
Stage
Under construction. Zoning, tax incentives, and JEDD approvals are complete across all three government bodies involved; the project is now the subject of a September 2026 lawsuit challenging two of those approvals.
Last SCM verification
2026-09-06
Tax / Incentives
JEDD income tax split Verified
Canton and Perry Township split JEDD income tax collections from the site - Canton receives 2%, Perry Township receives 0.5%
Source: Grace Springer, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-06-10
Tax abatement terms Verified
75% property tax abatement for 30 years via a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) agreement; Perry Township receives $2.75 million upfront in exchange
Source: Grace Springer, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-06-10
Tax deal approval timeline Verified
Perry Township trustees approved the tax break agreement March 24, 2026; Canton council approved it May 18, 2026; Stark County commissioners gave final approval June 10, 2026 (Richard Regula and Bill Smith voting in favor, Alan Harold abstaining citing unspecified legal/ethical conflicts)
Source: Grace Springer, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-06-10
Regula voted IN FAVOR and is on record calling it a '$2 billion investment in Stark County' - he did NOT abstain. Harold is the one who abstained.
Complaints / Enforcement
Defendants' responses Verified
Trustee Matt Miller said Perry Township is reviewing the lawsuit and working with legal counsel. Panattoni said it was not aware of the lawsuit and has followed all applicable requirements. The Stark County Board of Commissioners, City of Canton, and Perry Local School District Board of Education had not been served or declined to comment as of publication.
Source: Zaria Johnson, Ideastream Public Media; Abreanna Blose, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-09-04
Lawsuit filed Verified
Four residents - including Megan Kenney, Todd Kenney, and Keith Brown - sued in Stark County Common Pleas Court on September 1, 2026, naming Perry Township's Board of Trustees, Panattoni Development, the City of Canton, the Stark County Board of Commissioners, and the Perry Local School District Board of Education as defendants
Source: Zaria Johnson, Ideastream Public Media; Abreanna Blose, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-09-03
Legal challenge to the noise ordinance Alleged in lawsuit
The lawsuit argues Perry Township exceeded its statutory authority under the Ohio Revised Code in adopting the October 2025 noise ordinance, and that it's unclear whether that ordinance properly superseded the township's 1994 noise regulations
Source: Zaria Johnson, Ideastream Public Media; Abreanna Blose, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-09-03
A legal argument about statutory authority, not yet ruled on by any court - marked 'alleged' the same as the factual claims below.
Open Meetings Act allegation Alleged in lawsuit
The lawsuit alleges Perry trustees discussed the March tax-exemption resolution in executive session and voted on it immediately after, while the public agenda listed only 'adjournment' as the next item - and that the resolution's title ('To Preliminarily Consent to Terms of a Tax Exemption Agreement Benefitting the Township') was too vague for the public to understand a major tax incentive was being decided
Source: Zaria Johnson, Ideastream Public Media; Abreanna Blose, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-09-03
Private-meetings allegation Alleged in lawsuit
The lawsuit alleges Panattoni representatives met privately with Trustee Matt Miller and Township Administrator Gerrie Cotter and exchanged emails about the noise ordinance before it was adopted, including supplying sample ordinances from other jurisdictions; attorney Chun Yee Au says the final ordinance's language resembled Panattoni's suggestions
Source: Abreanna Blose, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-09-04
Au himself is quoted saying private developer input into legislation is common and not inherently unlawful - the allegation is about whether township officials protected residents' interests, not that the meetings themselves were illegal.
What the lawsuit is asking for Verified
Plaintiffs are NOT seeking to halt construction with this suit - they want a judge to declare the noise ordinance and the tax-exemption consent resolution invalid, which could also invalidate Canton's and the county's approvals since those relied on Perry Township's consent. Attorney Au says further litigation directly challenging the development itself has not been ruled out.
Source: Zaria Johnson, Ideastream Public Media; Abreanna Blose, Canton Repository (via AOL) — 2026-09-03
This part is a straightforward, on-record quote from the plaintiffs' attorney about the suit's own scope, not a contested factual claim - verified as an accurate account of what the suit asks for.