Hood County Rejects Comanche Circle Data-Center Permit Appeal
Commissioners rejected a proposed settlement and the developer’s permit appeal on October 13.
Hood County commissioners rejected a proposed settlement over the Comanche Circle data-center development and then denied the developer’s appeal concerning its on-site permit applications. The October 13 decisions create a material setback for the proposed campus near the Somervell County boundary.
Reporting by KERA, carried by Texas Public Radio, records a 3–1 vote against the settlement and a unanimous vote against the permit appeal. Sailfish Investors had offered to reduce the proposed footprint from approximately 2,523 acres to 1,375 acres, alongside commitments addressing the project’s local effects.
Project at a Glance
- Developer:
- Sailfish Investors
- Original proposed area:
- Approximately 2,523 acres
- Settlement footprint offered:
- Approximately 1,375 acres
- Decision:
- Permit appeal rejected
A rejected offer, not an approved smaller campus
The smaller acreage formed part of the unsuccessful settlement proposal. It should not be treated as an approved revised development. Cooling arrangements, setbacks, lighting and road improvements were among the issues associated with the negotiations.
For a large campus, those questions affect more than the position of individual buildings. They can influence site circulation, utility corridors, equipment placement and the amount of land available for development. The current record does not establish a replacement plan that resolves them.
What the decision establishes
The verified outcome is rejection of the permit appeal and the settlement. It is not proof that the entire project has been permanently canceled. Further applications, negotiations or legal action would each represent separate steps and should be reported only when confirmed.
The county’s public hearing notice concerned appeals under its on-site permit process. That specific action should not be described as a universal ruling on every authorization a data center might require. Large developments can involve multiple local and infrastructure approvals.
Construction timing remains unresolved
No construction start or general-contractor appointment has been confirmed in the reviewed decision reporting. The development has been associated with proposals known as Project Lion and Project Panther, but that association does not establish separate awarded construction packages.
The next useful milestone will be the developer’s documented response to the decision. Until a revised route through permitting is clear, the project belongs on a development-watch list rather than a list of confirmed imminent construction starts.