Forsyth County rejects rezoning for proposed 128‑acre data center near Rural Hall

The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners voted on July 30 to deny a rezoning petition (Case F1669) that would have allowed a three‑building data center campus on a 128.54‑acre tract near Rural Hall. Commissioners cited plan consistency and overwhelming resident opposition as central reasons for the vote.

Chris Murphy, the county’s planning and development services director, told the board the proposal sought to rezone the property from RS‑20 and GI to LIS (Limited Industrial Special Use) and would have produced three two‑story buildings with roughly 1.1–1.3 million square feet of interior space. Murphy said staff and the planning board were concerned the scale and intensity of the project “could result in significant off‑site impacts to nearby residents despite these conditions,” and that the request was inconsistent with the Rural Hall area plan and Forward 2045’s recommendation to protect neighborhoods from inappropriate nonresidential encroachment.

Supporters — including a family member of the landowner and representatives of the town of Rural Hall — argued the development would preserve open space, provide tax revenue without adding school capacity, and bring long‑term investment. “If this land is going to change, we wanted it to change into something that benefits the community and the county,” said landowner representative Marty Serber.

Opponents gave extended testimony calling attention to noise (including concerns about low‑frequency infrasound), water and environmental risks, proximity to a Duke Energy substation and a rail yard that stores tank cars, and the plan’s incompatibility with the area plan. Robin Smith, a neighborhood resident and technical commentator, warned the board that measuring A‑weighted decibels (dBA) at 55 decibels “does not measure the low frequency (DBC) energy where hyperscale fans concentrate their energy.” Other speakers presented a petition circulated in Rural Hall and cited the planning board’s 7–2 recommendation to deny the request.

A motion to approve the rezoning failed; a subsequent motion to deny the zoning map amendment, site plan and special use district permit carried. The chair closed the hearing and the denial became the board’s final action on Case F1669 for this meeting.

The board’s action leaves the property in its existing zoning; staff noted that other types of development consistent with the current plan (including residential subdivisions) could proceed under current rules without rezoning.

The decision may be appealed only through the processes available under the county’s land‑use rules and state law. The planning board record, staff report and the planning‑board vote were referenced extensively by commissioners during deliberations.