DeKalb County commissioners debate data center resolution over 5,000‑foot buffer

DeKalb County commissioners reopened debate on a proposed resolution that would restrict where data centers may locate, centering discussion on a proposed 5,000‑foot exclusion from schools, day cares, parks, churches and other public or commercial uses.

Commissioner 2 (County Commissioner) called the draft "a sham," saying the 5,000‑foot rule would leave "no such place in this county" where a data center could lawfully locate. He told fellow commissioners the resolution as written would prevent permitting in practice while adding that he supported a rule that regulated electricity, water and noise: "I have no problem with some kind of resolution that regulates data centers," he said, but he argued the buffer distance should be scaled back.

Commissioner 3 (County Commissioner) said he agreed on key points and emphasized both the ubiquity of data processing and the range of facility designs. "I personally use AI on a daily basis in my job," he said, then described a spectrum of facilities from low‑impact, solar‑assisted sites to high‑use operations that can require large generators. Commissioner 3 said the resolution is one of the few tools available in the absence of county zoning and that it could prevent nuisances; he added that companies could appeal and demonstrate they would not strain utilities. He told the commission he would "vote yes for this."

Commissioner 4 (County Commissioner) argued the commission risked overstepping its role by dictating matters — such as utility capacity — typically addressed by service providers or through permitting: "We should be trying to figure out ways to get business in here instead of trying to keep it out," he said, warning that restrictive rules could deter employers.

Commissioner 5 (County Commissioner) placed the county debate in a broader context, saying the state legislature is also examining ways to require incoming data centers to bear downstream costs related to grid expansion and peak usage. "Our legislature is addressing the same thing," he said, noting lawmakers are considering mechanisms to make new facilities pay for system impacts.

Commissioner 2 returned to urge a narrower buffer, suggesting "a couple thousand feet" would be more reasonable and observing that zoning would not resolve the issue if it retained the 5,000‑foot limitation. Commissioner 5 conceded that "the 5 thousand's too far."

The transcript provided stops before a final vote or formal action. Commissioners referenced a prior meeting in which "there was a motion to table it" and indicated the item was back on the agenda for additional input and possible workshop discussion. The record shows a clear split: some commissioners favor adopting a regulatory tool to prevent nuisances and protect infrastructure, while others warned that the proposed distance would amount to a de facto ban and urged caution to avoid driving away investment.

Next steps were not recorded in the provided excerpt; the item remained under discussion and flagged for further input.