Residents raise health, water and safety concerns over proposed Patterson Farm data center

Dozens of Mooresville residents urged the Town of Mooresville Board of Commissioners on a packed public-comment night to pause consideration of a proposed data-center complex on Patterson Farm Road, saying the project would strain utilities, create persistent noise and air-pollution risks, and change the character of a rural-residential area.

Speakers told the commissioners they fear the complex—described by commenters as multiple very large buildings, industrial fencing and on-site energy storage—would bring sustained diesel emissions from backup generators, heavy traffic during construction, and premature extension of sewer and water that could spur further high-density development in surrounding fields.

Those concerns were echoed across consecutive public comments. Donna Jones said the proposal “does not aid in the infill and redevelopment of Mooresville” and warned the site would create large areas in need of future demolition. Lynn Taylor cited a 2024 ecology study linking data-center diesel emissions to respiratory illnesses and said national estimates show large public-health costs. Multiple speakers referenced the project’s expected electricity and water demands, with one neighborhood speaker saying the site could consume “500,000 gallons of water per day” and another describing a proposed electrical load of about “360 megawatts” and “120 diesel generators.”

Speakers also flagged emergency-service and safety questions. Several asked whether local fire departments have the training and equipment to fight a large data-center fire and whether the town’s wastewater-treatment capacity is sufficient. Residents noted topography that would expose the site visually to nearby homes on Rustic Road and Patterson Farm Road and questioned whether a promised 100-foot tree buffer could effectively screen the complex on sloping land.

Critics also criticized the applicant’s engagement and asked the board for transparency. Carrie Pinnell and others said the proposal had been discussed “behind closed doors” in ways that left neighbors surprised at the scale of the project and called for independent studies documenting traffic, noise, air and water impacts before any annexation or utility extension.

Mayor Kearney and commissioners did not take final votes on the project at the meeting; the mayor said the board scheduled further hearings and emphasized the need for information to be available to voters before an election. The mayor told speakers the matter was set for a future board hearing and that timing had been chosen so residents would have the opportunity to consider board positions before voting in the fall.

The public comments reflect recurring technical and policy questions the town will face if the applicant pursues annexation and conditional zoning: who would pay for water and sewer extensions; how the town would manage long-term decommissioning or reuse of large, single-use industrial buildings; whether Duke Energy can supply the peak and sustained power the site might require; and how diesel-generator testing and fuel storage would be regulated and monitored.

The commissioners allowed an extended public-comment period; no formal board action on the Patterson Farm proposal was recorded at the meeting. The board’s next scheduled hearings on related land-use and annexation items were confirmed for later meetings, where staff presentations and formal agenda items will be available for public review.