Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rockdale County planning commission approves future land use amendment for proposed data center; rezoning motion debated
Summary
At a training-style hearing April 9, Rockdale County Planning Commission heard a mock public hearing and staff presentation for a proposed data center on about 52.78 acres. Commissioners approved FLUM2024-02 (future land use amendment) and debated a motion to deny the rezoning REZ2024-07; the applicant requested approval with conditions.
The Rockdale County Planning Commission on April 9 heard staff and applicant presentations about linked requests for the same parcel: a future land use map amendment (FLUM2024-02), rezoning (REZ2024-07) and a special-use permit for an electrical substation (SUP2024-02) connected to a proposed data center development.
Ryan Sadler, county planner, told the commission that the request would change the future land use from "high-density residential to Technology Park" and rezone roughly 52.78 acres from R-1 (single-family residential) to OI (office/institutional) "for the development of a data center," and that the application included an approximately 4-acre substation pad. "This is a future land use map amendment from high density residential to technology park for a development of a data center," Sadler said.
Applicant representative Carolyn Blackshear, for SDP Acquisitions LLC, summarized the proposal and asked for a favorable recommendation. "The site includes the following elements: 3 buildings totaling approximately 837,500 square feet ... applicant intends to request 2 variances," Blackshear said, and concluded: "We respectfully request your recommendation for approval with conditions." The presentation noted limited daily truck traffic and primary access from Lester and Farmer roads.
Commission discussion focused on procedure, applicable approval criteria and how to record deliberations on the public record. One commissioner moved to deny the rezoning (REZ2024-07) "based on the impact on the existing community." The record shows the chair later called the question and stated "Motion passed," but the transcript excerpt does not include a full roll-call tally or an explicit second for that motion.
Separately, the commission voted on the future land use amendment. A motion to approve FLUM2024-02 was made and seconded; the chair called for the voice vote and stated, "motion carries." The transcript records the approval but does not include a formal roll-call tally in the provided excerpt.
Brandon White, planning and development director, reminded commissioners that the planning commission acts in an advisory capacity to the Board of Commissioners and urged members to link any recommendation to the written approval criteria in staff reports so that the record explains how the decision was reached.
What happens next: approved planning commission recommendations and record materials are forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for their hearings and final decisions. The transcript notes that rezoning, FLUM and special-use items are heard separately for motions and votes even when discussed together.
Notes on the record: where the transcript does not include explicit vote tallies or the name of a seconder for a particular motion, this article reports those outcomes as recorded and flags missing details for follow-up.
