Residents demand accountability after Coweta County approves data‑center rezoning

Hundreds of residents addressed the Coweta County Board of Commissioners during an extended public‑comment period on April 21, sharply criticizing the commission’s recent approval of a rezoning that would allow a large data‑center project known in testimony as “Project Sale.” Speakers blamed the decision for threats to local water supplies, increased truck traffic, loss of rural character and alleged procedural lapses in how the vote was handled.

“Nobody lives there” was advanced by an applicant’s representative as a reason the reduced buffer would not harm neighbors, but residents disputed that account and pressed commissioners on transparency and conflicts of interest. Nikki Nash, who said she moved to Coweta County for its open land, warned: “Data centers are not passive neighbors. They are industrial scale operations. They demand enormous amounts of electricity … and consume massive amounts of water every single day.”

Several speakers said the April 7 vote to rezone was already decided before the public comment period and called for greater accountability. Kathy Newman charged that substitute speakers had been used at the April 7 meeting and said, “We can all tell that some of you… were happy that it would soon be over. But it’s not over.” Jimmy Newman described visiting a completed data‑center site and said traffic and staging made the area feel “like hell,” urging commissioners to consider the long‑term impacts on neighborhoods.

Commissioners and staff acknowledged the concern and noted the county is preparing an ordinance to govern data centers and planned a workshop in Savannah to discuss data‑center policy; Commissioner Smith said staff and the board will “put forth an ordinance that governs data centers that will be transparent and inclusive.” But speakers said ordinance development after rezoning did not address their concerns about decisions already made.

The comments combined technical concerns — water and power demand, buffer widths, traffic queuing and security at proposed truck facilities — with appeals to process and ethics. Multiple residents said they will use public‑records requests, ethics complaints and potential litigation as avenues to challenge the rezoning decisions. Several also referenced a county study and disputed the underlying fiscal assumptions used to justify the project.

The board listened but did not reverse prior rezoning actions at the April 21 meeting; staff said ordinance work would follow and that future procedures exist for revisiting approvals. The board adjourned after the public‑comment period; residents said they would continue to organize and seek review of the April 7 decision.