Coffee County planning commissioners press for strict controls on data centers in draft zoning amendment

Coffee County planning commissioners met in a special work session on June 10, 2026, to review a draft zoning amendment aimed at regulating data centers and to gather public input. The meeting was held without a quorum and produced no formal votes, but commissioners identified a set of changes they want the professional planner to draft for a future public hearing.

The most immediate priorities commissioners and members of the public raised were groundwater protections and testing, limits on generator runtime and noise, setback and height limits tied to facility size, and financial assurances to cover remediation and decommissioning. "Destroy everything. take all the water," said Delus Spangler during public comment, summarizing the urgent concern among nearby residents about water use and environmental harm. Another late-arriving public commenter stressed potential misuse of AI services hosted at centers and urged the commission to consider legal and enforcement gaps related to non-land-use harms.

Commission members discussed changes copied from other counties' ordinances and asked the planner, Amanda, to incorporate them and tighten several provisions. Commissioners proposed making the amendment effective immediately upon passage rather than five days later, strengthening language to require an applicant-funded baseline survey and water-quality and yield testing of nearby private wells (the draft example required testing within one mile), and asking county legal counsel whether the county can lawfully extend that radius beyond one mile in cases of shared aquifers.

On water and wastewater, speakers noted Coffee County lacks a municipal sewer system and that a data center would likely need its own wastewater treatment or retention systems. Commissioners and residents stressed retention ponds and wastewater discharges must be managed and monitored for heavy metals, PFAS and other contaminants the speakers said typical municipal tests may not detect. Commissioners favored applicant-funded, third-party testing with a schedule (quarterly was discussed as a minimum) and the county's right to approve or mutually agree on the testing firm.

Financial assurances were a recurring theme. Commissioners discussed two models: an upfront, long-term decommissioning or performance bond and an ongoing community impact or remediation fund that the facility would pay into annually or by a scale tied to facility wattage or size. Commissioners cited an example fee of $150,000 from another county's ordinance as a starting point for discussion, but did not adopt a figure. They also discussed requiring a remediation fund the county could use in perpetuity if a company dissolves or abandons cleanup responsibilities.

The draft also includes dimensional standards and buffers. Commissioners proposed reducing a proposed 65-foot height allowance to the county's existing 35-foot limit and discussed a 300-foot setback from residential and other sensitive uses as a baseline. Several members asked that setback distances scale with facility size—small, medium and large categories in the draft would carry different linear setbacks—and directed the planner to produce a size chart tying buffer requirements to square footage or other size metrics.

Noise, vibration and generator operation drew detailed attention. The draft text requires as-built sound studies and specifies maximum permissible sound levels, but commissioners asked for clearer, enforceable runtime caps for generators during non-emergency periods and for defined testing intervals. The group noted sample draft language limiting generator testing to 10 hours per month and confining testing to daytime hours; commissioners also referenced a legislative draft that caps continuous emergency runs at 72 hours.

Commissioners recommended that onsite power generation and energy systems (solar, wind, fossil fuel, nuclear) be treated as a separate use requiring separate zoning approvals. They also suggested requiring compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for on-site engines and emissions and making any monitoring or enforcement costs the facility's responsibility.

On aesthetics and lighting, the draft requires architectural plans and suggests allowable styles; commissioners asked that plans be submitted and approved and recommended lighting mitigation (full‑cutoff fixtures, lumen limits at property lines and curfew dimming) to reduce light trespass. Several speakers raised wildlife and ecological impacts from large, illuminated sites and expansive impervious surfaces.

Next steps: Amanda, the commission's professional planner, was asked to revise the draft to incorporate today's technical comments, add clear definitions to the ordinance's definitions section, and consult county legal counsel about the permissible scope of well-radius protections and long-term bonding or fund mechanisms. Commissioners also plan to invite the emergency management director to advise on emergency-power and generator issues at a future meeting. Because this was a work session without quorum, no formal motions or votes occurred; any zoning amendment will require a public hearing with at least 15 days' public notice before adoption.

What is not decided: The commission did not adopt final numerical thresholds for facility sizes, setback distances tied to scale, a required one-mile or larger well-testing radius, a dollar amount for a community impact fund, or definitive testing frequencies. Commissioners directed the planner and county staff to draft specific, enforceable language for the next business meeting and to provide legal guidance on enforceability and the county's authority over private wells.

The commission's work session produced technical direction but no final action; the planner will prepare a revised draft for consideration at a subsequent meeting that can be advertised for public hearing.