Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Data center rezoning and special-use request draws detailed technical briefing and resident questions
Summary
An applicant presented plans to rezone 1751 Bells Ferry Road for a multi‑building data center and to relocate a cell tower; commissioners received a technical briefing and residents asked for more information on power routing, grading, buffering and potential EMF and noise impacts.
An applicant team presented a proposal to rezone 1751 Bells Ferry Road to LI (Light Industrial) and obtain a special land-use permit to relocate an existing cell tower as part of a multi‑building data center development. The commission heard a multi-part technical presentation and multiple resident questions about siting, buffering, visual impacts, power delivery and community effects.
Kevin Moore, representing the applicant, described the project as a two- or multi-building data center campus with on-site backup generators and a new substation connection to high-voltage transmission lines near I‑75. Moore said the development would include substantial grading, a 50-foot landscape buffer and a proposed variance to increase building height to approximately 105 feet due to site grading. He told the commission the project would use four-sided building materials and proposed decorative security fencing and added landscaping adjacent to residences. Moore also discussed relocating a 35-foot cell tower within the site and said the proposed setback would be greater than the tower’s fall zone.
Several nearby residents spoke and raised questions. Matthew Share, a rental-property owner whose backyard abuts the site, requested more detail on property lines, the cross-section graphic, grading effects and the location of power connections, and asked whether the substation would be underground or overhead. Share also requested studies or data addressing electromagnetic fields. He said the cross-section diagram in the applicant’s packet misrepresented local topography and that additional field-level verification and surveys were needed. Other residents asked about noise, fencing, lighting, construction grading impacts and whether the substation would be sited to minimize visual and safety impacts.
Applicant representatives said they have met with utility providers and discussed transmission access; they described the substation as a separate installation to be constructed by the power provider and said they would coordinate location to minimize impacts. The applicant provided a stipulation letter describing exterior materials and buffering and indicated they would keep nonperforming billboards on the property nonactive (grandfathered) but make them permanent nonperforming features.
Commissioners did not record a final action in the provided transcript excerpt. The presentation included a tax‑revenue estimate the applicant said could be substantial for the city; residents and commissioners requested additional technical studies and clarification of the power-connection plan, fencing, grading, visual screening and EMF/noise analysis before a final determination.
