Paulding County residents urge moratorium and greater transparency on data centers

At a meeting of the Paulding County Board of Commissioners, several residents urged the board to halt or more tightly regulate data center development and the county’s recently adopted technology park overlay districts.

Sarah Novak, introduced by staff as a signatory speaker, said the concern is not about a single proposed project but about county policy that allows data centers adjacent to residential neighborhoods. “Residents are not reacting to a rumor. We are reacting to county policy,” Novak said, adding that the public deserves to know where elected officials stand and to have a voice before developers file applications.

Mary Ann Bayer, a 25-year resident, told commissioners she supports commercial growth but does not believe data centers are a good fit for the county’s residential areas. She argued the overlay districts were created through a text amendment that did not provide the same rezoning notice residents expect and asked for a referendum on the text amendment process.

Another resident who provided materials for the record (the clerk introduced her as “Miss Nelson,” and the chair later addressed her as “Ms. Wilson”) requested disclosure of any nondisclosure agreements and developer communications related to ordinance 2025-06 and said independent, third-party studies are needed on long-term effects on water, air, noise, wildlife and health. “When long-term impacts are still unknown, caution and independent review is not fear-mongering, it’s being responsible,” she said.

Michelle Wolven, who identified herself as a mother of nine and a 27-year resident, warned of potential utility and infrastructure burdens, referencing nearby jurisdictions that raised utility rates after approving large users. She also raised broader concerns about land conversion, the pace of technology change, and the risk of creating stranded industrial sites.

Speakers repeatedly asked the board to state its position on whether data centers should be allowed adjacent to homes, to consider a moratorium while the county studies impacts, and to provide transparent financial projections and infrastructure cost estimates tied to incentives and potential tax relief. Commenters cited the county’s stated goals of transparency and public participation and said the current notice and outreach approaches — including a local newspaper advertisement — had not reached neighbors in practice.

County commissioners did not take action on data-center policy during the meeting. The public-comments segment ended after several speakers requested more transparency and study; no vote or formal directive was recorded on a moratorium or ordinance change.