Tarrant County Judge Blocks Westlake Vote on PowerHouse Data Centers Deal

Key Takeaways

• A temporary restraining order prevents Westlake from approving a development agreement for the proposed 88-acre Circle T Data Center.
• PowerHouse Data Centers offered $914,000 for pump station renovations as part of an agreement covering noise, water, power and infrastructure standards.
• An Aug. 26 hearing could extend the dispute, highlighting the growing permitting and community risks facing data center developers.

Westlake Town Council members unanimously postponed action on a development agreement with PowerHouse Data Centers after a Tarrant County judge temporarily barred the town from approving or advancing the deal.

Judge Kimberly Fitzpatrick of the 342nd State District Court in Fort Worth issued the temporary restraining order roughly one hour before Monday night’s council meeting. The order keeps Westlake from acting on the proposed Circle T Data Center for two weeks, pending an Aug. 26 hearing on whether the court should issue a temporary injunction.

The approximately 88-acre project would sit within Westlake’s boundaries at the northern edge of Keller. Two Keller residents and The Lakes at Marshall Ridge Homeowners Association sought the order, alleging that the development posed a risk of “irreparable harm” to neighborhood property and residents’ quality of life.

Proximity is central to the dispute. The site is described as being about 500 feet from the backyards of several Keller residents, although Westlake officials have said the project would be more than 1,200 yards from residential homes. Those different measurements could reflect whether distance is calculated from property lines, buildings or particular project facilities. Either way, perceived closeness is fueling the conflict.

The Fort Worth Report account published by The Dallas Morning News said more than 30 speakers opposed the project during approximately two hours of public testimony. No speaker supported it. Residents requested further environmental review, relocation of the project, new restrictions on data centers near neighborhoods or outright rejection.

Westlake officials indicated that outright rejection may not be within the council’s power. The mayor told attendees that the privately owned land is designated for the proposed use by right. The development agreement was instead intended to place standards around noise, water, electricity and supporting infrastructure.

“Our goal is straightforward: Protect our residents and neighbors, respect existing property and zoning rights, and require this project to meet the exceptional high standards Westlake expects,” the mayor said.

That creates an awkward regulatory wrinkle. Blocking the agreement may delay the project, but it could also postpone the safeguards residents want. Much will depend on the underlying zoning rights, the claims raised by the plaintiffs and the scope of any injunction issued after the Aug. 26 hearing.

Under the proposed agreement, the developer would pay Westlake $914,000 to renovate a municipal pump station beside the site. The facility manages water distribution, making the payment relevant to one of the community’s biggest concerns. Still, funding an upgrade does not by itself answer questions about long-term water demand, backup generation, transmission infrastructure or persistent equipment noise.

A Keller City Council member urged Westlake to “choose cooperation over confrontation” and said Keller would pursue reasonable legal avenues to address residents’ concerns. A disabled Army veteran and local resident told the council that he had hoped for peace at his family’s home after 33 years in uniform and feared the data center would undermine it.

Why is one municipal agreement drawing this level of attention? Data centers have shifted from relatively obscure industrial projects to high-profile infrastructure developments as artificial intelligence raises demand for computing capacity. Gartner forecast worldwide data center systems spending will grow about 24-25% in 2024, reaching roughly $290-300 billion. That expansion puts more campuses near communities that may receive limited direct benefits while absorbing construction, utility and land-use effects.

Operators such as Equinix, Digital Realty and QTS Realty Trust have encountered versions of the same debate around large campuses: local tax value and digital infrastructure on one side, then power requirements, water consumption, traffic and noise on the other. Technical credentials such as the Uptime Institute Tier Standard and ISO/IEC 27001 can reassure enterprise tenants about resiliency and information security, but they do not settle whether a facility belongs close to homes.

For PowerHouse Data Centers and other developers, the Westlake case illustrates a broader due-diligence issue. Zoning entitlement alone may not translate into a predictable construction schedule. Community engagement, measurable operating limits and coordination across municipal borders can shape project risk well before servers arrive. The next decision belongs to the court, and its Aug. 26 ruling could determine whether Westlake resumes negotiations or the Circle T Data Center enters a longer legal pause.