Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County objects to Social Circle annexation of 41-acre parcel proposed for data center
Summary
The Newton County Board of Commissioners voted to approve a resolution objecting to a City of Social Circle annexation petition for a 41-acre parcel at 1279 Cannon Drive that the city says would be used as part of a larger data center development.
The Newton County Board of Commissioners voted to approve a resolution objecting to a City of Social Circle annexation petition affecting Tax Parcel 0132001 E, a roughly 41-acre property at 1279 Cannon Drive that the city says would be used as part of a larger development for a data-management or processing center.
County Attorney Molly (Gerard & Davis) told the board the parcel is currently zoned agricultural and that the city proposes rezoning it to light industrial under Social Circle standards. The notice of annexation describes a larger multi-parcel development; part of the property also lies in Walton County, Molly said, and Walton County would serve as fiscal agent if the counties coordinate. Molly recommended approving a resolution to object and, if passed, transmitting the objection to the city and to the Department of Community Affairs to initiate arbitration procedures.
The resolution was moved and approved. Commissioner J.C. Henderson raised concerns before the vote about process and information sharing, saying he had not been included in prior executive-session discussions and that he did not feel he had enough information to decide. Henderson said he would prefer a work session or that the board meet in executive session so commissioners could be fully briefed before deciding on such annexations. The chair put the motion to a vote and the objection passed.
Molly told commissioners the objection letter would be transmitted “substantially in the form” attached to the resolution and that initiating arbitration with the DCA would follow if the objection stands. The board did not hold a public hearing on the annexation; Molly said the statutory deadline for a response had been that day.
The transcript record does not include a detailed staff analysis of the data center proposal’s projected local economic or infrastructure impacts, nor does it list a final vote tally by name in the transcript. The board’s action, as recorded, was to approve the resolution objecting to the annexation and to have the county attorney send the objection to the city and the DCA.
No additional formal direction to staff or referral was recorded on the annexation beyond approval of the objection resolution.
