Colleton County Zoning Board of Appeals holds meeting on proposed data center

Posted

A full capacity crowd gathered at the Colleton Civic Center to take part in a meeting regarding the proposed data center in Colleton County. The meeting addressed the following:

• Special Exception Case No. SE-2025-139

Property Location: 0 Cooks Hill Road, a 859 acre portion of Tax Map No. 209-00-00-001 Tax Map #: 209-00-00-001

I. The Call to Order was given by Chairperson Samual Bethay.

II. An affirmative answer was given to the chairperson’s question of had the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act been met.

III. Invocation was not given. Minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

Ken Loeber, the representative from Eagle Rock Partners, addressed the auditorium speaking on specific points of concern, water source and usage, power and increased utility rates, economy, and ecology. Addressing each point individually, Loeber expressed that water usage would be minimal for the actual use of the facility and for the domestic usage for employees within the building. Regarding power, Loeber elaborated resident utility bills would not increase due to this project. Significant upgrades would need to be done and “we should, and we will cover all of those costs…”. Discussing environmental factors, Loeber assured “we are not trying to reclaim wetlands. We’re not reclaiming floodplain. We are not touching those.” Speaking on economics Loeber highlighted the five or six years of construction jobs that will be available. Loeber also commented on the data center job and the rhetoric that there is nobody in Colleton County is skilled for those jobs…and people will be coming from California to take those [jobs]. “This is all net new growth for our AI industry and “those jobs are not held by somebody else, not a relocation.”

Loeber concluded that at its face this was a simple zoning case, and they have complied with the obligations of the zoning code. “We believe we have been transparent and growing.”

IV. Public Discussion

Board Chairperson Bethay informed the audience prior to public comment there would be no vote to approve or not to approve the Special Exception request. The meeting was for informational purposes only. The public was given an opportunity to express their thoughts on the proposed data center project. Each speaker was allotted two minutes to speak. If a question was asked of the Board during that time, it would not count against the allotted time.

Many of the attendees came to the podium to speak about their concerns regarding this project, and all speakers did not support the data center proposal. The focus of most of the comments concerned the environment, particularly the ACE Basin, how the center would affect the water table and usage, and utility usage and rates increasing. Several speakers sited the Comprehensive Plan 2030 and how the proposed data center violates the Plan. One resident questioned the application itself calling it flimsy. A physician took the podium to share what kind of health impact a data center could impose on nearby residents. Another resident cited cultural concerns regarding generational ownership and the presence of family cemeteries on the property. Wildlife in the area was also a point of contention concerning destruction of wildlife habitats and harm to wildlife itself. Many residents pointed out that what makes Colleton County a good place to live is being traded for monetary gain and what will that leave future generations of Colletonians.

Representatives from the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Coastal Conservation League, and the ACE Basin Task Force also expressed doubts about the claims of low impact in reference to the data center. One resident suggested a moratorium be put on this issue for four to six months to allow the citizenry to perform more in-depth research to be fully informed about the project and what all it entails.

V. Representative from Eagle Rock Partners, Ken Loeber answered questions from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

VI. Board member Doug Mixon made a motion for adjournment, which was seconded and approved.