Save Spalding.

Sent November 18, 2025
Recipients:

To the Spalding County Board of Commissioners:
Request for Immediate Emergency Moratorium on Data Centers

I submit this letter on behalf of a group of Spalding County constituents who respectfully but urgently request an immediate emergency moratorium on all data-center rezoning and approvals. This letter and requested moratorium is necessary not to target any individual employee—many of whom have been extraordinarily helpful—but to address systemic administrative failures and high turnover across the last two years that have created legal non-compliance, missing public records, outdated ordinances, inconsistent procedures, and measurable harm to residents.

At this point, the County is legally unable to regulate data centers to the standards the Board claims, because the County itself is not in compliance with Georgia law, its own adopted procedures, or basic transparency obligations. Proceeding with further rezonings exposes the County to litigation and places staff and residents in untenable positions.

What follows documents clear, dated, fact-supported examples showing why a moratorium is not only reasonable but legally required until the County comes back into compliance.

---

I. Codes and Ordinances Are Legally Required to Be Publicly Available — and They Are Not

(Violation of O.C.G.A. § 36-80-19(d))

A. Municode Not Updated Since August 2023

As of the data-center rezoning hearing on October 23, 2025, Municode—linked on the County website as the “Code of Ordinances”—had not been updated since August 2023, leaving two years of laws missing.

B. The County Cannot Produce a Complete Physical Code Book

Multiple attempts to view the “complete code” resulted in:

• No physical code book at the Law Library per County Management and visit to the Law Library we were unable to find the book or anyone in the Law Library who could assist us in finding it if it exists there.
• No complete compilation in the Planning and Zoning office
• No alternative temporary publication on the County website (which the County could have done at any time)

C. Documented Attempt to Locate the Code

• October 14, 2025: Emailed the Law Library (no response).
• October 2025: Visited the Law Library in person — no staff to ask, no code book found but with staff may have been located although I was told by management that the Law Library does not have a copy.
• Emails to Ms. Erica Dye: She scheduled an appointment for October 23, 2025, during which only partial resolution folders were available and two minutes books. Many resolution folders were empty, with staff unable to explain missing documents due to turnover. I appreciate her transparency and honesty. She was a great help and this occurred prior to her holding her position but it has to be mentioned that this is missing to show that there is a problem in the county going back in time that is now effecting residents.
• Planning & Zoning: No physical copy of the code, not even an old book, exists there either (confirmed October 27, 2025).

This means the public cannot review the laws they are held to, and the County cannot prove what laws it has adopted without going through all of the minutes books to find them which they are currently having to do with staff and attorneys.  I was told that the codes and ordinances will be found and the codes updated to Municode in an estimated six month timeline. The lack of viewable codes alone constitutes a statutory violation and justifies a moratorium.  The lack of viewable codes and ordinances also could bring into question the problems it could cause with court cases.

D. Staff Confirm the Problem Is Internal

Both staff and Commissioner Dutton have attributed the missing updates to Municode “problems.”
However:

• The County has acknowledged disputes over unpaid bills.
• Municode cannot update files it is not sent, nor can it work if not paid.
• Even if Municode were the issue, the County has no excuse for not posting ordinances in the meantime on its own public website.

E. Open Records Requests for Municode Billing Have Not Been Fulfilled

• October 10, 2025: ORR submitted for Municode invoices.
• The request was not responded to, despite follow-ups.
• Evidence exists of a 2021 invoice, but not the most recent invoices.
• Another resident received a 2025 bill, demonstrating inconsistent responses to identical requests.

This pattern of non-disclosure and inconsistency shows the County is not meeting minimum transparency obligations.

Conclusion:
If the County cannot produce its own ordinances, the County cannot regulate data centers. Proceeding without a moratorium is legally reckless.

---

II. Missing and Outdated Maps Are Actively Harming Residents and Exposing the County to Liability

A. Water-Sensitive Area Maps Missing or Outdated

While researching the North Towaliga Village Node, staff confirmed:

• Required water-sensitive area maps cannot be located.
• Other maps are outdated.
• The code references specific, named, adopted maps that do not exist in any accessible location.

For data centers—where water protection is a mandatory regulatory factor—this is a critical compliance failure.

B. Mill Overlay District Map Was “Misplaced”

A resident purchased property classified as commercial on QPublic and confirmed as commercial by Planning & Zoning.  Prior to entering into a contract the resident did their due diligence and contacted the county to make sure it was commercial which at that time they confirmed.
Later, Planning notified the buyer that a misplaced Mill Overlay map had been found, revealing the property was not commercial, but restricted to residential use.  This is not due to the current planning and zoning director losing the map but again, having to work with conditions left by previous staff that needs rectified before proceeding further.

This error likely caused direct financial harm to a resident and potentially exposes the County to legal liability.

C. Land-use lawyers will exploit this

Developers with legal teams (including data-center attorneys) are positioned to use the County’s missing maps, outdated maps, and inconsistent zoning files to challenge conditions, overturn denials, or extract concessions.

A moratorium is necessary to locate maps, correct QPublic overlays, and ensure defensible zoning decisions.

---

III. Open Records Act Compliance Is Severely Broken

A. ORRs Frequently Closed Without Response

Residents have repeatedly had requests:

• Closed with no response
• Closed and labeled “completed” with no documents provided
• Responded to inconsistently (two residents requesting the same record received two different documents)

B. Critical ORRs Were Delayed Past Statutory Deadlines

Two examples directly affected zoning outcomes:

1. North Towaliga Village Node (Video Request)

• Requested: early in the rezoning process
• Received: 8 months later
• After: rezoning approved, appeal period expired, ethics-complaint window expired

Staff cited “legal review,” as the reason and gave the example that some information  needs redacting (specifically given the example that the lawyer would redact minor children) but the returned record contained a minor child playing right in front of the camera in the first nine files, demonstrating that not only were the documents responded to in a timeline that was reasonable and legal but also included sensitive material that was provided as an example of things they know should be redacted and was a minor child.

2. Data Center Ordinance Request (Requested October 8, 2025)

• The rezoning was set for October 23, 2025.
• Only after the rezoning—and after residents relied on an unsigned draft document that was sent by email when we requested the data center ordinance and was not made known in the email that it was a draft and not the official code like was requested—did the County provide the actual adopted ordinance on October 28, 2025 after the rezoning was approved.

This deprived residents of the ability to prepare for a legally required public hearing and undermined the County’s transparency obligations.

---

IV. The County Is Not Following Consistent, Publicly Available Hearing Procedures

Georgia zoning law appears to require written, publicly accessible procedures. Spalding County does not currently have such documentation available and has even not been provided to a resident to asked for it before a meeting.

A. Gas Station Rezoning: Public Hearing Denied After Tabling

• The Highway 155/Teamon Rd gas station was tabled to talk to a neighbor.
• At the next meeting, the applicant submitted new information.
• The County refused to hold a second public hearing, saying the requirement had already been met.
• Only the directly-affected neighbor was allowed to speak after emailing the attorney.

B. Data Center Rezoning (October 23, 2025): Public Hearing Allowed After Tabling

This is the opposite of what happened in the gas station case.

The inconsistency exposes the County to challenges on the basis of unequal treatment, arbitrary process, and lack of written procedure.

---

V. Minutes Are Months Out of Compliance

A. BOC Minutes

No minutes published online since July 21, 2025. The minutes tab only contains the After Agenda which  does not have important information such as what the public hearings contained.

B. Planning & Zoning Minutes

Not updated since July 10, 2025.

Missing entire ranges:

• April 10 – May 27, 2025
• October 10 – December 5, 2024
• June 13, 2024

Minutes are legally required public records. Their absence prevents verification of previous hearings and confirmation of whether public hearing requirements were met.

This directly affected resident research for the data center and Highway 155 gas station cases.

A record request was done for one of the minutes that was missing and instead of sending minutes the response was a link to the county website and told that it can be pulled up on the website. I had to ask it to be reopened because the minutes were in fact not updated on the county website which is why I had put in the records request.

A moratorium is needed until all minutes are updated and posted.

---

VI. DRI Confusion and Misinformation Require a Pause

The applicant’s attorney claimed Three Rivers would not accept a DRI.
However, official communication from Ms. Stephanie Wagner (TRRC) confirms:

• TRRC is still reviewing DRIs for projects that include data centers (Butts and Lamar).
• A DRI can be completed as commercial or industrial with a possible data center.
• New rules will be voted on November 20, 2025, expected to include data centers.
• A DRI for the most recent data center rezoning may be held at any subsequent government action: variance, plat, permitting per Three Rivers.

This was emailed by Three Rivers to a resident and they included the county on that email.

Proceeding with data centers before the updated DRI rules would be premature and potentially detrimental to not have that review advice.

---

VII. The County’s Claimed “Strongest Data Center Ordinance in Georgia” Was Not Even Accessible

Residents repeatedly heard claims that Spalding has the strongest data-center ordinance in the state.

Yet:

• The ordinance was not on Municode.
• Staff could not produce a signed version before the meeting.
• The version provided to residents was an unsigned draft.
• During the hearing, it was repeatedly called a draft, confusing both residents and Commissioners.
• Staff later confirmed the draft was NOT the adopted ordinance although the data center rezoning did include the conditions of the draft data center.

This mislabeling could render conditions unenforceable and rezoning approvals challengeable.

A moratorium is required to ensure the ordinance is properly adopted, published, and accessible.

---

VIII. Community Trust Is Breaking — and Residents Have Not Been Given a Town Hall Despite Asking and Research Being Done

Residents have asked for:

• A public town hall
• A Q&A on data center research
• A chance to understand impacts on water, noise, electrical capacity, taxes, and environment

Although a town hall was mentioned as forthcoming during a October 23, 2025 conversation with Dr. Ledbetter, no date has been set.

Proceeding with more approvals without community engagement is irresponsible and avoidable.

---

IX. Request for Moratorium

Given:

• Statutory non-compliance
• Missing ordinances
• Missing maps
• Delayed and inconsistent public records responses
• Missing minutes
• Procedural inconsistencies
• Conflicting DRI information
• Inaccessible data-center ordinance
• Continuing turnover and missing documentation
• Residents already harmed financially
• Staff left without the tools needed to do their jobs
• The risk of litigation and overturned rezonings

…Spalding County cannot responsibly or legally approve additional data centers at this time.

We request an emergency meeting to adopt a moratorium on data centers until:

1. All codes and ordinances are updated and in legal compliance by being accessible whether on Municode or for in person viewing.
2. Missing maps are located, corrected, or officially replaced or ordinances changed to specify how the overlays are determined.
3. All minutes are updated and posted
4. Open Records responses return to compliance
5. Written hearing procedures are available for the public to be applied consistently.
6. The data center ordinance is confirmed, signed, published, and explained in a town hall
7. The DRI rules (Nov. 20, 2025) are implemented and in the meantime have the applications submit DRI’s as industrial with possible data center capability
8. A Town Hall is held for public questions and explanation of research

We request a written response by Friday, November 21, 2025, so that we may determine whether a citizen-initiated zoning code referendum amendment is our next required step.

We appreciate the kindness and effort of Spalding County employees. Our concerns are not personal. They are structural, legal, and urgent.  We also need to protect the Spalding County employees by pausing and providing them with the tools in the office that they need to perform their jobs. The failings of past conditions are falling on the present employees so Spalding County needs to get the codes and maps and procedures in order to help protect our employees as well as our residents.

But without a pause, the County cannot protect residents, employees—or itself.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of a growing group of concerned Spalding County constituents,