Camden County staff present draft data-center rules; board asks for tighter environmental and notice protections

County staff presented a draft ordinance on April 21 to add a new Division 5 to the Camden County Unified Development Code establishing rules for data centers, including definitions, permitted zoning, development standards and application requirements.

Cassie, a county staff member who led the presentation, said the draft borrows language from nearby jurisdictions including Kingsland, Jones, Coweta and Colleton and is intended to "establish clear definitions and classifications for data center uses, limit data center development to appropriate zoning districts, [and] protect groundwater and surface water resources through conservation-oriented standards." The draft designates data centers (NAICS 518) as allowed only with special-use approval in Industrial Restricted and Industrial General districts rather than a use by right.

The draft sets technical thresholds and operational limits: a hyperscale data center was described as 500,000 square feet or larger with electrical demand above 50 megawatts; minimum lot sizes would be 50 acres for facilities under 100,000 square feet and 200 acres for larger facilities; required buffers include a 500-foot buffer from residentially zoned property lines and a 1,000-foot separation from any existing residential structure. The ordinance would cap noise at the residential property line at 60 decibels daytime (7 a.m.–6 p.m.) and 50 decibels nighttime (6 p.m.–7 a.m.), require full-cutoff fixtures limiting spill light to 0.05 foot-candles at residential lines, prohibit open-loop cooling, and require that any groundwater or surface-water withdrawals above 100,000 gallons per day be accompanied by a valid Georgia Environmental Protection Division water-use permit and conservation plan prior to permits or occupancy.

Commissioners pressed staff on several specifics. One asked whether the 50- and 200-acre minimums were excessive for Camden County’s largely rural and environmentally constrained unincorporated areas; another suggested a 25-acre minimum for a 100,000-square-foot building or, alternatively, using a maximum percentage of buildable footprint (for example, a 35% impervious-area limit) to avoid forcing vertical development with undesirable height impacts. "I wouldn't take the acreage out, but I would definitely look at the 50 and the 200 acre size," one commissioner said. Board members also questioned whether the 70-foot height allowed in some model ordinances is appropriate given local fire-rescue equipment limits.

Members discussed buffers versus setbacks and asked staff to clarify how setbacks for administrative buildings interact with a 500-foot buffer intended to shield residential neighbors. Cassie told the board buffers would be measured from the property line and would remain undisturbed except for approved landscaping, screening or storm-water features.

On emergency response and power, the draft would prohibit primary on-site power generation unless authorized through special-use approval and would allow backup generators only for emergency operations; commissioners asked who would determine what qualifies as an emergency and urged explicit coordination and sign-off from Camden County Fire Rescue and the county emergency management agency on emergency plans. Cassie said coordination and required signoffs would be added to the draft.

Board members also asked for changes to public-notice requirements. The draft would expand mailed notice to adjacent property owners within 1,500 feet at least 15 days before a hearing; commissioners noted past practice used a narrower radius (one reference was to 200–300 feet) and asked whether such an expansion should be applied countywide rather than only to data centers.

Other items staff proposed to add to the application package included noise-impact analyses, detailed water-demand projections, storm-water management plans, decommissioning and site-reuse plans, and, for hyperscale facilities, possible development agreements addressing infrastructure and long-term operational impacts. Commissioners asked for clearer decommissioning timeframes and for a community-benefit report showing post-construction staffing, tax revenue and mitigation or community-improvement commitments.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to reflect the board’s comments, return the ordinance for planning-commission review and public hearings, and then bring it back to the Board of Commissioners for further action. The draft as presented is a working document intended to start that process; no formal vote on the ordinance was taken that night.