Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Sale Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and developers split over "Project Sale" rezoning as public comment fills chamber
Summary
Dozens of residents, developers and industry representatives spoke during public comment on Feb. 17 for and against Project Sale, a proposed large‑scale data‑center rezoning; concerns included water supply, noise, property values and plan consistency while proponents cited existing transmission and economic opportunity.
Dozens of residents and several developers used the Feb. 17 public comment period to make competing cases about Project Sale, a proposed rezoning to allow large data‑center development on roughly 830 acres.
Craig Jackson (District 2) urged the board to view the site as appropriate because “if you want the least disturbance, you put it where the power already exists,” and he said the county ordinance includes protections such as expanded industrial buffers, lighting and water‑use limitations. Kent Mason, a developer with Prologis, also supported the plan, saying only about 40% of the 830‑acre site would be developed and the remainder kept as buffers and setbacks.
Speakers opposing the rezoning raised environmental and quality‑of‑life concerns. Kathy Newman and Jill Daniel warned about water‑supply vulnerability tied to Coweta’s contract with Griffin‑Spalding and referenced a recent interim advisory in Griffin after a fuel spill. Tim Ryan urged the county to preserve comprehensive‑plan consistency, arguing the site is currently designated “rural conservation” and that plan amendments should precede any heavy‑industrial rezoning.
Other opponents, including Ron Bachrath, John Kurtz and Amy Taber, cited potential impacts on property values, noise from large cooling systems, increased utility costs and the difficulty of decommissioning obsolete facilities if demand changes. Jimmy Newman raised broader labor‑market concerns about automation and AI that he said should factor into local rezoning decisions.
No vote on rezoning occurred at the meeting; the remarks were part of the publicly noticed comment period. Commissioners heard the range of views and will consider the public input as staff and the board proceed through the formal land‑use and hearing process.
Representative comments:
• Craig Jackson: “If you want the least disturbance, you put it where the power already exists.”
• Kathy Newman: “Our water supply is not guaranteed no matter where it comes from.”
• Tim Ryan: “If prior rezonings were supported because they aligned with an existing industrial footprint, then that standard should be applied consistently.”
What’s next: The rezoning process requires staff review, public hearings and eventual board action; no final land‑use decision was made on Feb. 17.
