Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fayetteville council approves 120-day pause to study data-center development after extended debate

Fayetteville City Council · April 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hours of debate about utilities, noise, environment and community control, the council voted 6-3 to impose a 120-day study/stay for data-center applications and asked staff and the planning commission to draft an ordinance and coordinate with the county.

Fayetteville's City Council voted 6-3 on April 27 to impose a 120-day study/stay on data-center applications while staff and the planning commission develop recommended ordinance language, coordinate with Cumberland County and arrange site visits, following lengthy council debate about potential environmental, utility and neighborhood impacts.

The move followed an informational presentation from Assistant City Attorney Victoria Curtis explaining moratoria under North Carolina General Statute 160D-107 and the findings and public-hearing steps required for moratoria longer than 60 days. "In the land use context, a moratorium is a temporary pause on development approvals," Curtis told the council, summarizing the statute's procedural and substantive requirements.

Mayor Pro-Tem moved the 120-day stay, proposing that staff work with the county and include recommended site visits for council members; Councilmember Hondros seconded. Councilmembers who supported the measure cited a need for fact-based study on four recurring concerns cited by residents and colleagues: water, electricity, noise and air quality. Opponents said they worried such a pause could chill investment or that staff had already identified possible mitigations.

The final recorded vote was 6 in favor and 3 opposed (Councilmembers Jones, Greene and McMillan voted no). Assistant City Attorney Curtis later clarified that adopting a formal pause in approvals ordinarily requires adopting a moratorium ordinance under state law; some councilmembers said the intent was to use the 120-day period as a fact-finding window and to return with a defensible moratorium or ordinance for consideration.

Council directed staff to return with draft ordinance language, a timeline for public hearings, and recommended subject-matter experts and community engagement steps to ensure public input during the study period.