Greenwood Council approves second reading of data-center rules after hours-long hearing

GREENWOOD, S.C. — Greenwood County Council voted 5–2 on June 2 to approve second reading of a zoning text amendment intended to regulate data centers, following nearly four hours of presentations from county staff, utility officials and industry experts and a lengthy public-comment period in which residents urged a moratorium.

Deputy County Manager for Operations Rob Russian told the council the proposal would add data centers as a conditional use in the county’s I1 (light industrial), I2 (heavy industrial) and RDD (rural development) zoning districts and create a set of conditions for approvals, including a conditional-use permit, utility-verification letters, vegetated buffer yards, setback minimums, noise and lighting standards, mechanical and substation screening, and a decommissioning plan. "Right now a data center could be developed in any of those RDD parcels with minimal restrictions," Russian said in the staff presentation.

James Baitman, Greenwood’s economic development director, outlined the county’s rationale for acting: protecting the community from unregulated projects while preserving the county’s ability to compete for industrial investment. Baitman said the county’s proposed infrastructure-credit agreement with Amazon (approved separately the same night) and other market signals had made the issue urgent. "Without guard rails in place, someone could buy land zoned RDD and start a data center with no protections in place," Baitman said.

Local utilities and service providers described the technical work that accompanies possible data-center development. Steve West, Duke Energy Carolinas’ economic-development director, outlined Duke’s vetting and study process and said his company charges developers for studies and requires financial commitments to protect ratepayers; "we will not allow data centers to push the system to the point that existing customers are left in the dark," West said. Greenwood CPW General Manager Jeff Meredith said the county’s water system has capacity to meet many modern, closed-loop cooling designs and noted that most water use is a one-time fill; Metro sanitary officials described wastewater treatment and permit limits. Each utility emphasized that project-specific studies and contractual assurances would be required before service was extended.

Supporters at the hearing — including school and college leaders and some economic-development proponents — described potential tax revenue and workforce partnerships if a data center were built under strict conditions. Pedagogical and workforce benefits were highlighted by Piedmont Technical College and district superintendents who said new investment could fund training and programs.

But opposition was strong and sustained. Dozens of residents, health professionals and local advocates urged caution or a moratorium, citing noise (including concerns about low-frequency "infrasound"), light, emergency-generator emissions, potential effects on water pressure and long-term environmental and health impacts. Representative McCravy, a state lawmaker who addressed the council, urged a pause: he described pending state-level work and said some jurisdictions have adopted moratoria while they study impacts.

Planning Commission members previously voted unanimously to deny the amendment and recommended a 24-month moratorium to gather more data, Russian said; that recommendation factored heavily into public testimony.

After debate, Council member Don Templeton moved to approve second reading of the amendment while directing staff and council to tighten language before third reading; the motion passed 5–2. Council members who supported the measure said the county needed protections in place because the RDD district currently lacks rules that would prevent a developer from locating a data center immediately; those opposed said the draft ordinance did not go far enough and a moratorium was warranted.

Council asked staff to return with clarified definitions, revised setbacks and more specific utility-verification requirements ahead of the third and final reading. The council did not vote on any project-specific permits tonight; the text amendment governs how future applications would be reviewed.

The amendment’s next procedural step is a third reading, where council is expected to consider any language changes recommended by staff or council members.