Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commissioners for stricter rules after long data‑center hearing
Summary
At a lengthy public hearing, residents urged Troup County commissioners to tighten draft UDO rules for data centers — citing groundwater, noise, fire and decommissioning risks — and called for larger setbacks, mandatory decommissioning bonds and limits on crypto mining; the board tabled the ordinance for more work.
Dozens of residents told the Troup County Board of Commissioners on April 7 that proposed zoning rules for data centers and crypto‑mining facilities are not strict enough, asking elected officials to keep large facilities away from wells, homes and schools.
Staff planner Austin introduced the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments, which would classify facilities by size (small <5,000 sq ft; average 5,000–100,000; hyperscale ≥100,000), set a minimum parcel size of 25 acres, require connection to public water and prefer public sanitary sewer, and impose operational limits including a 1,500‑foot buffer from sensitive receptors, maximum building height of 75 feet, and noise caps (60 dB at sensitive receptor boundaries). Austin also said average and hyperscale sites must supply a decommissioning plan and, for larger sites, a surety bond covering estimated restoration costs.
Residents disputed those protections as inadequate. ‘‘Take a sip of my water. I can only get it from the well,’’ said Leslie Sims, describing family wells in the Grama Hill area and urging greater distance between facilities and residences. Cindy Hutchings, who said the county’s draft is stronger than the city’s, asked that setbacks be measured from neighboring property lines rather than building footprints and urged a requirement that hyperscale sites use city sewer.
Speakers raised a range of technical concerns: noise and vibration linked to sleep disruption and health complaints, fire risks from large battery banks, chemical discharges associated with cooling and wastewater, and the long‑term risk of large empty buildings if the industry contracts. Several residents warned that annexation by nearby cities could enable projects outside the county’s zoning authority unless state law changes.
Chair responded repeatedly that no data‑center applications were pending with the county and reiterated that the board was conducting first readings of ordinance language, not approving a project. After public comment, commissioners voted to table/continue the ordinance for further refinement and scheduled additional review rather than proceeding to adoption at this meeting.
The board also invited more stakeholder input, said staff would provide clearer references in the published draft, and noted the county’s existing moratorium was being used to buy time for ordinance revision. The matter will return to the board for further consideration; no project approvals or permit decisions were made tonight.
