Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Paulding County commissioners for stronger rules, say data centers threaten water, noise and neighborhoods
Summary
Dozens of residents urged stricter rules or a moratorium on data centers in Paulding County, citing water use, noise, light pollution, property-value impacts and gaps in the technology-park overlay code; advocates asked the board to require predictive acoustic and water modeling and public disclosure of utility commitments.
Public comment at a Paulding County Board of Commissioners meeting was dominated by objections to the county's proposed technology-park overlay and concerns about potential data-center development.
Shannon Uts, who introduced herself as a Paulding County resident, said she only learned about the overlay a month ago and urged the board to revise the technology-park overlay district (TPOD). "Data centers are like opening Pandora's Box for industrial development," Uts said, urging stricter buffers, clearer height limits and a requirement that developers seek exemptions so the planning commission can vet requests.
Multiple speakers cited examples from other Georgia counties and asked the board to require technical studies before approvals. Sarah Novak, speaking for the Preserve Paulding Community Coalition, read ordinance references and requested that the county enforce protective measures in the TPOD, including requiring predictive acoustic modeling, a raw-water analysis, formal utility willingness-to-serve letters and a photometric lighting plan before final approvals. Novak cited specific ordinance sections during her remarks and asked that written amendments be entered into the official public record.
Daniel Rautman and other residents warned about long-term, potentially irreversible consequences for homeowners who rely on private wells, saying neighboring counties reported wells running dry or water-quality problems near large data-center projects. Rautman framed his plea as cautionary: "These companies can afford mistakes. Homeowners cannot," he said, urging a postponement of large projects until stronger regulation and oversight exist elsewhere.
Steven Cochran and others called for greater transparency about commissioners' voting records and any hospitality or travel provided by developers, and for clearer publicly available engineering and environmental data. Speakers listed community concerns including continuous mechanical noise, light trespass, heavy construction traffic, generator emissions and possible impacts on Sweetwater Creek and other local waterways.
Several commenters appealed to the county to keep data centers out of residential areas. John Callas, who said his property backs up to the proposed footprint near Bethel Church Road and Brownsville Road, asked the board to create a technology-park district that would not affect nearby homes.
The board chair addressed the audience during the meeting and said an overlay does not constitute an approved proposal: the county has assembled an overlay to study potential sites and has not accepted any final proposal, the chair said. The chair also stated the county had started a study of targeted industries in 2015 and emphasized that no active application to build a data center had been approved at that time.
No formal vote on zoning or a moratorium occurred during the meeting. Speakers asked the board to amend specific TPOD language, to require pre-approval modeling and utility commitments, and some urged a temporary moratorium on approvals until code amendments are adopted.
The board moved afterward to an executive session on real estate, litigation and personnel; the meeting record does not show a final decision on the overlay or any immediate policy change.
