Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Input Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dozens of Blount County residents urge officials to block proposed AI data center; commissioners say no application has been filed
Summary
More than 30 residents spoke during public comment opposing a potential AI data center, citing water use, noise, light pollution, PFAS and economic concerns; commissioners said no application had been presented to the planning commission and discussed possible zoning measures to discourage such facilities.
Dozens of Blount County residents used the public‑input portion of the commission meeting to press officials to prevent an AI data center from locating near the county, citing environmental, public‑health and economic concerns.
The first speaker, Danielle Vanover, said a petition opposing the facility had gathered more than 11,000 signatures in two days. Other commenters raised specific claims: Bethany Dval said AI data centers can use ‘up to 5 million gallons of water a day,’ Cassandra Anderson warned about PFAS contamination risks, several speakers described noise and infrasound impacts on sleep and wildlife, and others said data centers provide few local jobs while increasing electricity demand and rates for residents.
Speakers also urged immediate zoning action. Julie Carabia suggested the county adopt onerous restrictions — citing Bradley County as an example — so that data‑center developers would be discouraged from pursuing sites in Blount County.
Commissioner Hannah responded that, as of the meeting, no AI data center application had been brought to the commission for approval and that she was reading the same public information as residents. She said commissioners and county partners are examining zoning resolutions and that county, city and regional officials have been talking about ways to protect the property under discussion. Commissioner Wales said Blount County, the City of Maryville and Alcoa were coordinating to protect a potential site.
The meeting record captures many assertions from residents; the commission did not validate technical claims during the meeting. Commissioners encouraged speakers to follow up by email and noted that zoning and permitting processes — not the planning commission’s immediate agenda — would determine any formal review.
