Commission sends data‑center rules back to planning with energy, water and transparency conditions

After extensive public comment expressing environmental and equity concerns, the Athens‑Clarke County commission on April 7 approved referral of a proposed data‑center ordinance back to the planning commission with additional criteria for special‑use review.

Commissioner Myers moved amendments asking staff to incorporate seven specific requirements into the ordinance or into special‑use permit criteria: mandatory energy‑use and peak‑demand reporting (including utility power allocation letters and backup‑generation disclosure); a water‑consumption sustainability plan with closed‑loop cooling and drought vulnerability analysis; clear disclosure about how data centers would be prioritized for power or water during resource constraints; limits to facility size and clustering to avoid concentration in particular neighborhoods; encouragement of community benefit agreements; a decommissioning plan requiring recycling of electronic infrastructure; and a modest increase in certain design setbacks from 400 to 500 feet where relevant.

The motion passed after discussion. Myers clarified that the county currently has no locally approved data centers and that the staff and planning commission should refine technical thresholds and reporting formats: "So right now we do not have any data centers," she said to underscore that commissioners were shaping rules before approvals arrive. Dozens of residents had urged strict review or moratoria earlier in the meeting; Tana Smith Matts — speaking for community groups — told commissioners, "We are saying no clustering of data centers in our neighborhood ... 100% non‑polluting renewable energy, not offsets, not promises."

What happens next: Planning staff will draft specific permit criteria and reporting templates for review by the planning commission and return to the commission. The referral replaces a broader moratorium by creating a local review pathway; commissioners noted some entities (for example investor‑owned utilities regulated by the state Public Service Commission) may be outside the county's permitting reach and encouraged ongoing coordination with state representatives.

Why it matters: Proponents of stricter rules argued they are needed to protect water supplies, neighborhood health and the county's renewable‑energy goals; proponents of carefully considered review said clear standards will improve predictability for applicants while protecting community resources.