Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate possible ban on data centers, direct staff to draft ordinance
Summary
Camden County commissioners spent more than an hour debating whether to ban data centers in unincorporated areas, citing concerns about water, power, noise and road impacts; a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance banning data centers was moved and discussed but the board paused for a break before a final recorded outcome.
Commissioner Smith moved that county staff be directed to draft an ordinance that would ban data centers in unincorporated Camden County, setting off an extended debate among commissioners about whether an outright ban or a restrictions-based ordinance would better serve the county.
Supporters of a ban said residents raised concerns about local impacts. "People don't want them here," one commissioner said, citing opposition at the City of Kingsland's public meetings. Another commissioner who said he had contacted residents living near existing data centers described road damage, noise from large backup generators and higher local costs to support infrastructure.
Opponents of an immediate ban argued the board should wait for tighter drafting and more facts. "If they can give us a hundred million dollars, then I want to see it in writing," Commissioner Cody said, pressing for written commitments on environmental protections and tax impacts before an absolute prohibition. Several commissioners favored using the existing moratorium period and directing staff and county attorneys to draft enforceable standards rather than a blanket ban.
County staff and the county attorney cautioned about statutory drafting risks and recommended careful ordinance language; the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) had provided guidance for counties drafting related statutes. Before the debate concluded, a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance banning data centers was made and seconded and the board brought the question for a vote. The meeting then recessed for a five‑minute break; a final, recorded outcome on that specific motion was not completed in the transcripted portion provided.
The issue will return to the board for additional ordinance drafting and possible future votes. Commissioners suggested possible next steps including tighter permitting standards, a targeted ordinance, or putting changes on a ballot if removal of projects from the referendum is necessary.
