Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning panel recommends denying land‑use change for proposed Tomochichi Road data campus after heavy public opposition
Summary
The Spalding County Planning and Appeals Commission voted to recommend denial of a future land use map amendment for a proposed data‑center campus near Tomochichi Road after hours of testimony from residents about wetlands, wells and traffic; the decision will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action on May 28.
The Spalding County Planning and Appeals Commission on Tuesday recommended denying a future land use map (FLUM) amendment that would have allowed a roughly 291‑acre Tomochichi Road site to be redesignated for a data‑center campus.
Steven Jones, an attorney representing developer Hillwood and data‑center partner PowerHouse, told the commission the project would deliver an industrial campus with high‑paying jobs, limited truck traffic and substantial tax revenue. "Combined, they can and are able to deliver this campus with speed and efficiency," Jones said during a combined presentation of four related applications, which included a rezoning, special exception and variances.
Dozens of residents who live near the proposed site urged commissioners to reject the change. Greg Burns, a longtime resident who said the ordinance prohibits locating data centers in wetlands, asked the commission: "Are those just words, or are we gonna uphold this?" Multiple speakers described repeated flooding along Cabin Creek, groundwater concerns near a capped county landfill and potential impacts to wells. Michael Edwards said approving the project would be "unconscionable" for nearby homeowners; several others warned of noise, diesel emissions and property‑value losses.
Planning staff said the property remains largely within a residential character area and recommended denial of the FLUM amendment. Staff noted long‑range planning concerns and said adding almost 300 acres to the county's employment corridor now could set a precedent that would jeopardize established residential and agricultural areas. "Should this board choose to deny the FLUM amendment, the other three items are rendered moot," staff commented during the presentation.
Commission members debated visibility of a proposed 70‑foot building, timing amid drought conditions and whether the site properly fits the comprehensive plan. One commissioner said after driving the site he had "a hard time seeing the timing of this one right now." After discussion, a motion to deny the FLUM amendment carried with no opposition; commissioners recorded no roll‑call tallies in the hearing record and the decision will be forwarded as a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, which will take its own vote on May 28.
The applicant had proffered several conditions — including a closed‑loop cooling system, a six‑foot berm with evergreen plantings and limits on truck routing — and said the development would connect to the Spalding County Water Authority rather than local wells. The applicant also acknowledged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife map shows a small manmade pond flagged as wetland in the site footprint and requested a variance tied to that designation.
Next steps: the county commission will consider the recommendation at its May 28 meeting in the same room; the planning commission's recommendation is advisory and not binding on the Board of Commissioners.
