Mooresville commissioners delay Patterson Farm rezoning after residents raise water, noise and transparency concerns

Mooresville — Residents of Patterson Farm Road and nearby neighborhoods pressed the Mooresville Board of Commissioners on May 5 to delay any rezoning or annexation connected to a proposed data‑center project on the Earnhardt property, citing water use, noise, light pollution and lack of public information.

Dozens of people spoke during an extended public‑comment period before the meeting. Scarlett Inman, who lives on Stallings Mill Drive, told the commission the Earnhardt rezoning “is completely inconsistent with the 1 Mooresville plan,” which she said designates the area for rural and agricultural preservation. “Rezoning to flexible use opens the door to development that does not align with the vision,” she said.

Why it matters: Residents said the town has not been given enough detail about the proposed data center — including the end user, projected water consumption and long‑term site plans — and asked commissioners to require independent studies before scheduling a public hearing. In response, the board removed the Patterson Farm Road annexation/rezoning request from the June 2 docket and instructed staff to schedule it later after additional information is gathered and the applicant presents to the board in a public work session. Commissioners also discussed visiting existing data centers to see real‑world noise and light impacts firsthand.

Most‑heard concerns: Several speakers described the area as a rural, low‑light community and warned a data center could change that. Carrie Pannell, a Patterson Farm Road resident, said the information available to the public was “deeply insufficient” and asked the board to hire an independent third party to meet with residents and answer concerns. Donna Jones, who said houses near the site are selling for $1 million to $2 million, said she worried about “noise pollution” and long‑term remediation costs if a large facility ultimately closes.

Technical claims raised at the meeting included a reference from speaker Sarah Deaton, a co‑owner of LP Commercial Properties LLC, that a “mid‑sized data center uses an average of 300,000 gallons of water a day,” and residents’ references to a developer’s proposed footprint of roughly 400 acres and “about 1,500,000 square feet of building footage.” Those figures were presented as speakers’ statements and were not offered as town findings.

What the board decided and next steps: After public comment and a staff scheduling proposal, commissioners voted to move other land‑use items forward on the calendar but to remove CZ 202504080 (the Patterson Farm Road annexation/rezoning) from the June 2 agenda and schedule it for a later date. Commissioners asked staff to arrange a public work session where the applicant would present details to the full board and the public. Commissioners also said they want to visit recently built data‑center sites to observe noise and light levels and compare developer testimony with actual conditions.

Board context and process notes: Commissioners emphasized they are not ruling for or against the project; they said they want more complete, verifiable information before considering a public hearing and eventual vote. Multiple commissioners noted that relying only on developer-provided studies is insufficient and suggested both an independent technical review and on‑site visits to existing facilities.

Voices from the public (selection of direct quotes): - Scarlett Inman: “Rezoning the Earnhardt property is completely inconsistent with the 1 Mooresville plan.” - Carrie Pannell: “The information available to the public is deeply insufficient … delay scheduling a hearing.” - Renee Earnhardt (property owner): “Where are the environmental impact studies? There are no files, no records, no facts to base a decision that will forever impact the lay of the land and our way of living.”

What the meeting did not resolve: The town did not accept or deny any rezoning application at this meeting. Commissioners did not adopt any new standards or numerical thresholds (for example, a specific water‑use cap or noise limit) at the session; they instead directed staff to return with additional information and to schedule a public work session with the applicant. Assertions made by speakers about water use, acreage and building size were reported as those speakers’ claims; the town did not present independent confirmations at the May 5 meeting.

Next steps for residents: The commission’s staff will set a date for the public work session and for rescheduling the rezoning/annexation application; residents who sent written questions were advised to continue submitting issues in writing so the town and applicant can prepare direct responses. Commissioners said they will share plans for site visits to comparable data centers and the results of any independent technical reviews before scheduling a formal public hearing.

Ending: The board’s action to postpone the Patterson Farm matter leaves the proposal in a preliminary status while staff assembles additional information and the applicant prepares a public presentation. Commissioners said they aim to have a fact‑based record before any formal land‑use decision.