Oconee County planning commission forms subcommittee to study data-center rules; does not impose moratorium

The Oconee County Planning Commission voted Feb. 2 to form a two-member subcommittee to study ordinance changes and performance standards for data centers, after public comment and a wide-ranging discussion about zoning, power availability and environmental impacts.

The commission’s chair opened the meeting by placing data-center ordinance changes on the agenda. In public comment, Tom Markovich said the county should plan for beneficial uses of data-center waste heat rather than reject data-center development outright. “My biggest concern about data centers is not about the water or anything else. It’s about heat,” Markovich said, urging the county to explore partnerships with food processors and heat-recovery approaches. Another commenter, Perry Smith, told commissioners that “moratoriums have no place in our county government,” calling them government overreach and urging clear, deliberate ordinance development instead.

Commission discussion centered on whether data centers fit the county’s existing land‑use categories and what the county can regulate. An unnamed commissioner who introduced the item said the county code currently lacks a definition for “data center” and proposed a temporary moratorium as one tool to pause new applications while staff and the commission draft standards. “It seems a temporary moratorium on accepting and processing any new application for facilities is reasonable and necessary to allow county staff and the planning commission sufficient time to study the issues,” that commissioner said during the discussion.

Other commissioners pushed back that not all data centers are the same and that the county’s existing definitions for commercial and industrial land uses may address some types of facilities. Staff and commissioners also noted there were no active data-center applications in Oconee County at the time of the meeting and that prior attempts were stopped because utilities could not supply the required power. One commissioner recommended requiring any large data center to supply its own power so local service is not diverted from residents.

Rather than adopt a moratorium, the commission approved a motion to form a subcommittee to investigate performance standards and draft ordinance recommendations. The original motion described a three-member committee; the motion was amended on the floor to a two-member subcommittee and approved by voice vote. The subcommittee was authorized to consult outside experts and report findings and recommendations back to the full commission. The commission also voted to put a review of Chapter 38 of the county code on the next meeting agenda for further consideration.

The subcommittee’s membership was not finalized in the transcript; commissioners indicated they would coordinate schedules with staff and post any required meetings. The commission did not record a roll-call vote in the transcript; approvals were recorded as voice votes.