Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises health, noise and legal concerns over proposed hyperscale data centers
Summary
Amber Stokes told the Berkeley County Commission she and nearby residents worry hyperscale data centers proposed in the county could harm health, wildlife, water supplies and property values and urged a commissioner to join a court challenge to HB 2014; commissioners heard the comment during public comment and did not take immediate action.
Amber Stokes, a 30‑year Berkeley County Schools employee, urged the Berkeley County Commission during public comment to scrutinize proposed hyperscale data centers and consider legal action.
Stokes told commissioners she was "not going to go into a whole lot of detail and bore you" but said residents near planned facilities have raised concerns about water use, noise and property‑value impacts. She said hyperscale centers are different from smaller facilities the region has seen and that "we cannot always trust what the data centers are telling us," citing uncertainty about long‑term effects on community health and wildlife amid a seven‑year local drought.
Stokes said one proposed QTS facility would sit about 1,000 feet behind a hospice center and within a mile of a VA medical center and urged commissioners to seek more information on potential noise and health impacts for nearby veterans and people with sensory‑sensitivity conditions. She recounted work with autistic students and warned that even low‑level hums can be disruptive.
Stokes also said she and local counsel are seeking to challenge state legislation she referenced as HB 2014 (also mentioning HB 204 in the discussion). She said an attorney is prepared to file suit but needs "one commissioner from a county, just one, to actually sign on as a plaintiff to fight HB 2014." She said Putnam County officials were "watching and waiting" and might join if Berkeley County acts first.
The commission did not take immediate action in response to Stokes' request during the meeting; the comment was recorded as part of the public‑comment period. Stokes provided an email address for counsel and asked county staff to reach out to the attorney with questions.
The commission’s executive and legal staff did not provide a public response during the meeting to the request for a commissioner to sign as plaintiff.
