Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Rockdale County Board of Commissioners zoning public hearing. Today is June 25th, 2026 at 6 p.m. I am Commissioner Tawanya Smith, and we will call our meeting to order. First, we'll have the approval of the agenda. So I move to approve the agenda. All right. I second that motion. So we have approval for the agenda. Also approval for the minutes from May 28, 2026.

I move to approve the minutes.

And I second that. So we have approval for our minutes of May 28, 2026. And now we'll have a recording for the rules or procedures for our public hearing.

Each speaker must sign their name to the appropriate zoning case sheet and fill out a public comment card to register your intent to speak. prior to the start of this meeting. Each item of business shall be handled in the order that it appears on the agenda, unless upon a motion of the Board of Commissioners, the order is changed. A member of the planning staff will present each item to the Board of Commissioners. The zoning applicant or agent will state their name and address at the podium and will have 10 minutes in which to make his or her presentation. Any portion of their 10 minutes may be reserved for rebuttal following the opposition to the application. After the applicant's presentation, all registered speakers who wish to speak in favor of the application will then be heard. Prior to speaking upon the item, each registered speaker will state their name and address at the podium. They will also be limited to a total of 10 minutes. Once the applicant has made his or her presentation, and the speakers in favor of the application have been heard, the secretary will then call upon the registered speakers in opposition to the application. The opposition shall likewise be limited to a total of 10 minutes. Once the public hearing portion is closed, no other speakers will be heard. After all public comments have been heard, the board may elect to hold a general discussion. However, no discussions will be rendered at this hearing. Decisions will be made at the next regularly scheduled Board of Commissioners meeting.

All right, thank you. Now we have no unfinished business, and we'll move to our new business. Madam Clerk?

Yes, I think Director White is here to speak about the first application, which is rezoning 202601.

Good evening, commissioners. Hope you all are doing well.

Thank you.

So this case is a rezoning request, 2101 Dogwood Industrial Circle. This is a request to rezone from the M1 Limited Industrial District to office institutional. The subject property is 1.2 acres. So we've had some challenges with communication with the applicant who may or may not be here today. So what we elected to do at the Planning Commission meeting was to defer the item. And so what we recommend to you all is that you refer the item back to Planning Commission. So we have touched base with the applicant. She is aware of what the schedule would be for the future meetings.

She's here.

okay all right and so she'll get an opportunity to speak here uh so what we did was recommend to refer the item back to planning commission and we'll restart the process in august so that's our staff recommendation thank you

So, Director White, if I understand you, the applicant did not speak and give a presentation before the Planning Commission.

Yes, ma'am. That's correct.

Okay. So in order for the board to hear an application, they have to have a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So this item would need to be sent back to the Planning Commission to be heard. Correct.

Understood. Okay.

I mean, that doesn't mean that the applicant since can't say something tonight, but we can't open the hearing for that.

She's still present in case the board has any questions.

She understands. OK.

So I think at this time, if we could, we could have the board entertain a motion and a vote to send this item back to the Planning Commission. Oh, do we do that tonight? I would do that tonight. Yes.

So I move that we refer this back to the Planning Commission.

I second that motion. It's been motioned and approved to send this back, REZ202601, back to the Planning Commission. I think the meeting's going to be in August. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. And so all in favor? Everyone agreed? Aye. All right. OK, thank you. Motion carried. OK, next item. so we're on to item text amendment twenty twenty six zero three which is the you the unified development ordinance director white man.

I commission this will give you an update on where we are with the process And so what we did as part of the process, we opened up a survey for the Unified Development Ordinance process. And you see some of the results here on your screen on a few of the polls that we did as part of this process. So we asked a few questions about some targeted aspects of the process so far. So you see on the left side the pie chart as it relates to architectural design. So you see in the green that most of the respondents feel that the standards are appropriate at this time, and then it tapers down from there. Similar question about housing size, and you see the responses there from those who took the survey. We also inquired about accessory dwelling units as a proposal. So 36% in support, 23% strongly support, 17% in opposition, 10% strongly oppose accessory dwelling units as a proposal. Home occupation standards, also we surveyed the public on that as well. So we'll take you through some of the highlights of the changes based on where we are in the process right now. And so if you recall, one of the proposals is to modify the list of zoning districts that we have in the county. And so R2 would be folded into RM, the residential multifamily district, getting rid of the mixed residential and just having a mixed use zoning district that would include both aspects of residential, commercial, everything in between. Another proposal is to fold the CSO and the CSR zoning districts into a conservation village zoning district. And so with that, we're looking at both of those districts strike at the same thing, but this is an attempt to refine it over time and to get some conservation subdivision development where we could preserve some of the land, but also cluster some of the development in some of our agricultural areas. We're also proposing merging our office districts and also the civic institutional district into our office institutional zoning district. Since the last time we met, we've removed the Monastery Village zoning district as part of this proposal. so it still needs time to refine what the character area would be for that zoning district and then what regulations should apply so there's still a lot of outreach we would need to do spatial analysis that would need to be done and whatnot so we've pulled that one back so mv will not be one of the zoning districts proposed as part of this process We're also proposing to modify the name of the M1 zoning district. So currently limited industrial. And so we're just flipping that to light industrial. One of the areas that we have been working on diligently is our residential and architectural design standards. We've had discussions with builders, developers, folks in that arena as we've worked through this process to refine our regulations as it relates to the design of residential homes and residential subdivisions. And so we started at 40% requirement for exterior brick stone. We scaled that back to 25% on the front and on the sides, still prohibiting vinyl siding as an exterior material. We're also bolstering our regulations as it relates to architectural features and breaking up the monotony of subdivisions. And so we really want the development community to work hard to provide variations within the subdivision along the blocks, each home. And so we put a figure in there, give some guidance there as to what those features should look like, be it bay windows, be it shutters, be it how the roof line is proportioned so we'll give them some guidance. It's kind of set the parameters and then they can work from there. Garage placement was also a prominent change in the proposal. We're asking to modify the regulations so that the garages are recessed five feet back from the front facade of the home. And so what we're trying to get out of that is to change the subdivisions from being auto-dependent, where you come right in, you see the garages, everybody's in and out of the garages, to make porches and make the front facade more inviting, to engage with the streetscape, to get folks on the porches, to liven up the streetscape, but also make it more visible, more active between the homes as you work down the street, down the sidewalks, through the pedestrian paths and whatnot. So that's our attempt to do that by providing regulations for garage placement. And then obviously we have our roof design requirements as well. One of the, we got some recent feedback related to the chickens. So that was relatively low hanging fruit and so we've addressed that in the code as well. So one could have chickens on the minimum lot size of one acre instead of the three acres that's required right now. And so throughout the document, what we've attempted to do is to update our uses, to update things to align with state changes, statutes, regulations that have changed at the state level, address vague provisions where possible, and try to tighten up regulations, refine some things throughout the code. On the commercial side and agricultural side, one of the proposals we have added the term and the definition for agritourism. So that's feedback that we've gotten in recent months for desire to have that type of use and activities where owners of agricultural land can both farm, but then they can also have some limited commercial activity on the property as well that supports or works in conjunction with the agricultural activity taking place on the property. So we've made that addition to the code. Once again, the term definition on supplemental regulations as you see on the screen. Data centers, obviously we've spent a lot of time on that. And so the proposal that we put forth at the planning commission meeting on last week, we went back based on all of the feedback that we've heard and we scaled it back to simply the term data center. We modified the definition. So we think we have a more suitable definition, more streamlined definition for data center. And then we pulled back on a lot of the other language that we had, the different tiers and scales of data centers. So all of that that you see in the red strikethrough are proposed for deletion.

we're also showing the a similar pattern in the use table wait director white could you stop just a moment please were you saying you want the definition is that what you can't read it okay maybe if you could go back to that one slide and read out the definition of data center that might help I think the red strikeouts, if I heard you correctly, Director White, the red line version was modified to reflect the comments that were received at the Planning Commission meeting? Is that what you're saying? No, prior to. Prior to.

No changes have been made since the Planning Commission meeting.

Okay.

Nothing has changed since... Nothing has changed. We have not changed this language between last Thursday and this Thursday.

Well, then we'll handle that portion and the public comment portion.

And so the definition reads, a physical room, building, or facility that houses infrastructure for building, running, delivering, or transmitting technological applications and services or for storing and managing the data associated with technological equipment, applications, systems, or services. And so we've also addressed that particular use, the data center use in the proposed use table. So once again, we started off with a tiered system with the hyperscale microdata. And so we pulled all of that back. So right now we're just showing the strikethrough changes for the public consumption. So you can see that it's not being proposed for any of our commercial zoning districts or any zoning district for that matter. So right now we would have a term, a definition, and in the use table we would have the term data center and the blank sales indicate that the use would not be allowed, it would be prohibited in all zoning districts. And so here, once again, is a closer look at the definition. And so if approved by the board, this is what the use table would look like without the strikethroughs and everything. So a discussion point that we brought up at the planning commission meeting and we put it forth to commissioners for your consideration, we did want to acknowledge that micro data centers and data center activity and office uses do exist. So historically, that's how they have functioned. So it's only in recent history they've gotten larger, significantly larger, over time to meet some of the demands and requirements for the digital society that we're in right now. So we want to put forth for your consideration, if you're interested, to acknowledge that data centers, micro data center, would be an accessory use to office uses. So they would be allowed in districts that allow for offices. They would be accessory subordinate to an office use to serve the tenants of the office building. However, any event that an office user or builder developer would have you would like to use the facility for co-location and allow for users outside of that building to store in that office building, it would be subject to a special use permit. So we would go through a public hearing process to Planning Commission, to the Board of Commissioners, and open to public consumption, public feedback, public scrutiny as a part of the co-location application if you so choose to move forward. If you decline, that's fine. There's nothing, we haven't put anything in the code. We've just made a note to put this forth for your consideration. So just as an example, you see on this map, can you find the data center on the map? So just a few landmarks, Bobby Dodd Stadium, I-75, 85, Georgia Tech. Upper right-hand corner, there's a data center. That's what it looks like. So this is not to advocate for data centers, this is merely to give you an example of what it looks like in an office setting. So this is not to propose 21-story buildings in Rockdale County or anything of that nature, just to give you an example that this is what it looks like in an office context. Another section that we worked on, and we're still working on, temporary special events. And so this has generated a lot of interest. We get a lot of emails, calls, concerns about temporary special events around the county. So we are in the process of working on modifications for special events. One of the things part of that process would include a new definition. So we've broken the definition into parts here, just so it's easier to consume. But we base it on a three-part definition. Is there an admission fee or a leasing fee? Is there controlled or ticketed entry? Are there goods or services available for purchase? If you check those boxes, it's considered a temporary special event. We've given some examples as part of the definition. includes private and public property. And then the definition concludes with some exceptions to it. And so what the regulatory framework would look like, permit approval would still be required for any temporary special event. We did make some exceptions to the rule with state sales, yard sales, garage sales, those types of things would be excluded. There's always the conflict of what is considered a private event, a family event, compared to something that may be open to the public. And so we're putting a number on it. And so 50 or fewer people would be exempt from the temporary special event provisions, also assuming that none of the other parts of the definition apply to the situation so you all can take a look at that think about it as part of this process it could be 50 it could be whatever the pleasure of the board is whatever the desire of the community may be as it relates to that we are proposing to increase the number of events from two times a year to three times a year the event duration is currently 10 days we are not proposing any changes to that duration at this time We are requiring, still requiring coordination with the sheriff's office, fire rescue, environmental health, parks and recreation, emergency management, and obviously planning and development is a part of that process. and so also one of the regulations that we've included we are reserving the right to require a mandatory roundtable meeting so there's certain events just due to scale it could be due to past history it could be other compliance issues where we may feel the need to have a roundtable meeting similar to what we do with some of our development projects, just to make sure the coordination is there, everybody's on the same page between the applicant, whoever's operating the event, and then everyone that's involved in the regulatory process. The application requirements in brief, a detailed letter of intent, legible site plan, application fee would be required. And then we are lastly proposing to extend the application review period from 30 days to 45 days. Let's see. In the current draft, we've also made some proposals for our administrative procedures, our administrative bodies on some of our public hearing provisions. The first being planning commission. We're proposing to increase the membership from five members to seven. So that would make it equivalent with the Board of Adjustment, which currently has seven members. We've proposed the elimination of the first read step of the process. And so what we've done there, essentially, staff takes any application. We've reviewed the application for completeness. The application fee has been accepted. And so we would just proceed from that step into the planning commission meeting. We would still have the zoning public hearing before you all, and then the second read would still occur. So the process hasn't changed, it's just that first step, the initiation part of the process. But for your consideration, I think we have it under special use permits, but not under rezonings. We can notify the board as applications come in so you're still aware of when they come in and what's in the pipeline.

Can I ask you, are there any fines for people that maybe have special events and they go outside the parameters of what they're supposed to do?

So they would fall within the guidelines of all the other county violations, up to $1,000.

So it would be a code enforcement process and they'd have to go to court?

Yes, depending on the nature of the violation. So if we're talking about something that's unpermitted or outside of the scope of what it was permitted for, yes. When we get into issues that may be noise or there may be other types of crimes, then the sheriff's office will be involved and would handle that part.

And is there a way to make it tougher violations or something more immediate than... long drawn-out code enforcement process we we haven't addressed that part but we can take a look at that okay yeah

Let's see, third on the list, so we've added clauses in those sections regarding minor and major modifications. So for rezoning applications, special use permits, variances, the boards that make those decisions, the first two being you all, then the variances falling into the realm of the Board of Adjustments, they can add conditions to any approvals given. And so if there are modifications that are needed to those conditions, they still have to go back to that respective board. Presently, it just states that. They go back to the board to request for the modification. What we propose is a minor and major classification system. So essentially, major is any substantive change to, let's just say, a site plan. If they need to make modifications to those conditions, they would need to come back through the public hearing process, Planning Commission, Board of Commissioners, the whole nine yards, and justify the need for those modifications and show what that proposed change would be. What we're also proposing is in cases of minor changes, so let's just say there's a monument sign, square monument sign, and for whatever reason they can't do a square, they wanna do a circle. That may be considered minor, and we can handle that administratively without the need for a public hearing. So essentially, there's a list. Here are all the things we deem major. Anything that's not on the list as major is minor, is how it's written right now. So that's a proposal that we have for your consideration. And then lastly, we've addressed some issues that have come up of late regarding deferrals. So we've included language about deferrals, how that process would go, and giving the board that authority to defer cases to a later date. If there's more time needed for community engagement, if there's more time to get additional information, to update plans, this will give you that opportunity to do that.

So I have really a concern about eliminating the first read because I know we have not done this on our board for a number of years, but sometimes something comes for a first read and the board doesn't want it at all. So if you bypass the first read and not have the ability to vote against the decision at that first read, then it goes through a whole lot of process that may not be necessary. I know it happens in other counties.

And so one of the conflicts that we have right now, and it's something we can fix through this process, is by the time the application has gotten to you for first read, that application has been taken in, deemed complete, and an application fee has been paid at that process. So if it doesn't get past first read, then we have to issue a refund for that application.

Why?

Because the application isn't going through the process. We haven't initiated the process.

No, they initiated the process with application. Where does it say that they're guaranteed? I mean, like if it's not in the code, I guess I'm confused.

So right now the code requires that there be a first reading. And so what I'm saying is if the application goes to first reading and is denied for some reason, Prior to that point, that application fee has already been paid, that application has already been accepted and deemed complete. And so we would need to issue a refund. So we can modify that process, but it's not codified at this point.

Sorry to cut you off, Director White. So an ordinance requires a first and second reading regardless of when you do the first and second reading. We have the first reading that comes to the board first right now because that's simply a notification that this has been put into the process. Other jurisdictions do have their first readings, but they do it a little bit later, like they may introduce it at the planning commission and then the planning commission hears it, that the board hears it, and then it comes to the board's voting session for the first and second reading after the hearings. So it's just a matter of procedure. But ordinances are required to have a first and second reading. You would still have to do that regardless. I think it's just a matter of preference. If you want to have a first reading, so it notifies at your board meeting that something is about to go through the public hearing process. If not, then it starts in planning and it goes to the planning commission for a hearing, then the board of commissioners for a hearing, and then your first and second reading at your voting session.

So just to clarify, if it's something we know that the board is not going to support, And they have a first hearing at our meeting, and that's where we decide it's not moving forward.

So I would never advocate for the board voting something down on a first reading, because then you get into some due process issues. Because even though it may not be stated in our code, it is definitely stated in the Zoning Procedures Act when you have an applicant who has a right to go through a process to be heard, and then you decide what you're going to do with that application.

So it's our Zoning Procedures Act or State Zoning Procedures?

It's the State Zoning Procedures Act, and counties are subdivisions of the state, so they have to carry out the same acts that would be provided in the Georgia Constitution, and they're by the act. Okay, very good.

Thank you. But in the legislation, it says the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission both have to do that.

So the way our UDO is written right now is that before the Board of Commissioners can hear an application, they have to have a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So we have two hearings here, basically. So it has to go to the Planning Commission, and then it has to come to the Board of Commissioners for a hearing. Okay. Okay.

Transitional provisions. So this issue has come up quite a few times, and so we know there's a great degree of interest in it. So I'll try to run through it fairly quickly. It's a lot to see. But essentially, any violations that exist under the current UDO would still be violations under the new UDO, assuming it hasn't been cured through whatever new regulations over that. Anything that is deemed legal non-conforming use or any legal non-conforming situation. If it's not remedied by new regulations in the code, it remains a legal non-conforming. Approved rezoning variances, special use permits. Those run with the land. They do not change just because the UDO changes. So anything that's been approved remains approved and runs with that property unless it's modified or it's never built or what have you. administrative variances same thing run with the land but they do have expiration dates and so under the new you do any approved administrative variance which remain in effect unless it expires what's the time frame on that for exploration One year. Okay. Let's see, existing uses, so any existing use that's not under construction, currently open, so if there's a store that's open, if there was a house that was built, whatever, if that use is active, completed, that use is allowed to continue under the new regulations. Pending applications, pending rezoning, pending variance, pending special use permit, those applications are allowed to continue based on the regulations that were in place when the application was submitted. They're allowed to continue that process. So a change to the UDO does not alter that part of the process. Any approved or existing permit will be acknowledged in the new code. So it continues under the previous regulations unless it's expired or the activity has ceased or something has changed with the project. So if they want to do a renovation, expansion, something like that, the new portions would need to be under the new UDO.

how is grandfathering like for businesses how is that handled is it a sick like if they're non-compliant and then they're closed for six months the rule used to be that you had to bring everything up to the new code so how would that work in the new section

I don't believe we've made any modifications to it.

So it still stays six months?

I know we had discussions about whether to change it to 12. Okay. But yeah, let me take a really quick look and see what we did. Yeah, so we did do 12, so we changed it to 12 months.

So let's talk about a couple of examples maybe where that would apply.

Okay.

If you would, please.

Let's see. So typically, let's say we'll start with a lot. So let's say that there is a lot that is smaller than the minimum that's required. So we could say it's a residential lot. It's supposed to be at least 3,000 square feet, what have you. It's 2,500. So unless the regulations change in the new UDO, that nonconforming lot remains nonconforming. So that doesn't change. You would still be allowed to use the lot. You can build on it. Whatever is allowed within the zoning district for the nonconforming lot, you can do. There may be some modifications. You may need variances and what have you. But if the lot was determined to be a legal nonconforming lot, you can still use it based on what the UDO would allow for you to have.

And that's for residential work. commercial.

That would be any lot. Any lot.

Which we've seen that through the years, like for commercial uses where a business was operating, they closed down. Six months later, somebody buys it and thinks they get the same use, but in fact, they'd have to come up to compliance after six months? Yes.

So for use activity, yes, ma'am.

OK.

Yes, ma'am. So if that activity ceased for six months under the current code, if it's 12 months under the new code, then yes, they would need to bring the entire property up to standards with the new UDO. That's how that would go.

I have a question for you. Yes, ma'am. With the same example with the lot, if I built a house and it was all vinyl, would that be okay with the new UDL, or do I have to build according to the specs in the new UDL?

So, it depends. So, are you talking new construction? Yeah, because it's just a lot right now. It's just a lot.

It's just a lot, and I had it, and now I want to build a house.

So, if you... If you'd submitted building plans before the effective date of the new UDO that were approved that allowed for a certain type of material, you would still be able to build based on the old UDO. Now, if you submitted those plans after the UDO changes, then the new regulations would apply. Now there are also instances and cases of fire, damages like that. We'll take that into consideration and yes, you can go back and you can do the same material that you had before given the circumstances. If you were doing a renovation to that house, that's where you could potentially get stuck. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. right let's see uh permit applications yeah so uh so that's what we're talking about permit applications so building permits etc that's what uh this line refers to so anything received before uh september 8th uh would be reviewed under the current udo anything after that date uh when the new udo would apply Existing PLATs, approved PLATs, are not subject to change while we're going through this process. And still, even once the code changes, any plans or PLATs, final PLATs, preliminary PLATs that are in the process, they're allowed to continue to finish that process under the regulations that were in place at that time. Pending PLATs, obviously, it would depend on when it comes in. Conditions of approval, we talked about before, any conditions approved before September 8th would be allowed to, they remain as is, they don't change, regardless of the changing of the regulations. And so that's how those would be treated. One provision that we are proposing is a concurrent application review. Because we do have subdivision projects, land development projects, they take a great deal of time to get from could be rezoning it could be from LDP a land disturbance permit all the way to building permit portion of the process what we want to do is to not break up that development process and so it would be problematic if they got a land disturbance permit under one set of codes, and then you have to do the final plan under a different set of codes. That could be problematic if the districts have changed, if the setbacks have changed, that kind of thing. And so what this allows for is if the developer is aware that, hey, I need all of these applications for this project to go through, I would like them all under this current existing UDO, there would be an application process that they could file with us and say, I need all of these things. We would hold them to the current UDO regulations for the duration of the entire process.

And that's just the ones that they submitted, not if I wanted to add something additional. Correct.

So they would need to stick to the scope. Yeah, everything would need to be tied into the original scope. Yes, ma'am. So there's still some things that we have to work on. So we'll be working diligently through the holiday and then over the next few weeks. So finalizing the zoning districts, we talked about that, updating the use table, making sure that we have the list of uses, make sure we brought everything over that exists currently, and just double checking, triple checking that we've accounted for everything. We want to take a look at our parking standards as well, make sure that everything's appropriate there. We're working through home occupation regulations. We've gotten some feedback recently about home occupations, so we're working on that as well. And so one proposal that's come up as we're working through this process for board consideration is the requirement of a pre-application community meeting. For rezoning applications, for special use permit applications, this would require the applicant to hold a meeting with the community in the surrounding area of the subject property prior to submitting an application for consideration by the board. And so how it would work, we would set the parameters, you know, here's what the radius looks like, one mile, two mile, five miles, what have you. HOA groups, other stakeholders that most people are aware of that may be in those different communities, they would need to reach out to those individuals, give them notice of a pre-application meeting about this particular proposal. hold that meeting at their convenience, then we would need documented proof that that meeting occurred as part of the application process. And so this is a way of adding some additional community engagement into the process that doesn't currently exist.

Let's talk about rezoning. So what obligation do we have as a county? Let's just say that land is owned agriculture. What obligation do we have for a special use permit?

So the special use permits, the quasi-judicial, and so we're required through, and there's still some uncertainty on the legal side of it as it relates to the zoning procedures laws and where the quasi-judicial cases fit in with, in comparison to rezonings, which is zoning decisions. But essentially, we are required to have public hearings. So they have to go through the process. They have to be approved by the board, have those public hearings at certain times. So we have to give notice 15 to 45 days in advance of those meetings. There's requirements for the signage. There's requirements for the legal notices that we mail out to the surrounding community. And so that's what we're required to do as part of That process. So those are the minimum. We can do more.

But it's because of our current UDO.

Right.

That we have to do that.

The UDO and also the zoning procedures laws from the state.

From the state of Georgia. So if we take out our Unified Development Ordinance now, what would the state require? The state requires us, if somebody has an agriculture zoning, it requires us to have hearings to a change in that zoning.

Yes. And if we don't plan the commission, planning commission has to weigh in on and has to give you a recommendation based on the comprehensive plan. And then it's that the rezoning is a legislative decision. So that decision has to be made by the board of commissioners. And then there's the public notice signage, everything that goes along with that process.

But as a community community, if we decided agriculture is always going to be agriculture, we can't just decide that's the way this county is going to operate.

so the our rezoning decisions are all based on a comprehensive plan and so when we go through the comprehensive plan process we lay out what the future land use uh designations will be that's the guidance for how we make the rezoning decisions and then also for the rezoning this criteria that we have to apply when we uh analyze those requests as well okay thank you so yeah so next steps so the pre-application community meeting is for your consideration so we'll talk about those and let us know how you feel about it the community is more welcome give your feedback if you think that's a good idea or not and then we'll do our QA QC on the document also we'll have it distributed to our attorneys the county attorneys will also review it as part of this process So we're nearing the end of the line here. So we're at the 25th, the June 25th meeting. We're still working towards the July 14th BOC adoption of the ordinance, either in whole or part, with the effective date being September 8th of 2026. however any event the board wants to move forward with some portions and then take some more time to work through some other things we have an alternative schedule here on the right that would allow us some additional time to work on any outstanding areas they need further discussion for the work and then we can work that back into our August cycle take that back to Planning Commission as a text amendment uh to the ordinance on august 13th uh back for boc zoning public hearing on august 27th and back to a day meeting on september 8th for approval of those text amendments and To conclude, one last thing for your consideration. So we have been exploring some online community engagement tools that will help support these processes. So we've seen some in some other jurisdictions where it allows us to set up online portals. We've had some discussions with Deputy Director White about it as well. He was thrilled about it. And so we can take rezoning cases, we can take comprehensive planning activities, we can take text amendments and essentially create project pages for them. And so on those pages we're allowed, we can do polls, we can do surveys. We can take comments and all of that information is stored on one website. It can mirror the county's website. We can post the documents there, obviously. And so then we contain all the community engagement to that website.

Does it allow you to read people's comments? Yes.

Yes, ma'am. And so we can manage how it functions, so you can turn it on, you can turn it off. But comments, polls, surveys, there may be some other features that I'm forgetting at the moment. But something that we're looking into that we want to pitch to you in the very near future.

Do you have a potential financial impact?

$17,000. $17,000. year pre I think some of that is startup cost and so we'll get a breakdown we haven't set up a demo or anything well thank you we're looking into that and then just to aid with this process having perhaps an annual zoning text amendment batch process and so we know there'll be high priority things emerging things that pop up that we don't have control over and that's fine but we'll have a set schedule every spring summer so after the legislative session is over at the state any changes that were mandated to do anything that we've been working on we'll kind of bring all of those things every spring every summer so it'll be just a continuous cadence predictable schedule where there'll be modifications to the UDO so just something to consider we're not proposing to codify it but to make it a part of our internal

operations and so with that that is the end of the presentation any additional questions yes I have a no I have a couple so let me ask you this I've given it a lot of thought and I think that because of the Massive undertaking. I applaud your department. And I know that we used a consultant in the beginning, but I appreciate you guys taking it back over and trying to include more feedback from the community. So a couple of thoughts I had is maybe looking at some of this stuff that we've Worked on for a long time. We already know, you know, maybe these are the portions of it that we like maybe having your office propose Those for us to go ahead and move forward. So we're not holding up those aspects of the adoption That would be similar to like we've already done that for gas stations Small box stores Let's see storage facilities liquor stores has already done vape vape shops. Yep, so That's been handled, but then there's other parts of this that I think would be good for us to go ahead and proceed with and then focus at an even deeper level of how we're going to address those things moving forward. And so at that point, maybe consider having a community group to work on those specific issues. kind of what's left of that and maybe some of those members could be a portion i'm just going to pick a number like 15 members of that task force maybe 10 of those from the previous group that you had working with the collaborative firm and the planning department and maybe five new members of people that are willing to invest the time and energy into more research and make recommendations to us okay yeah no problem I want to add that if we did do that that it would be a smoother process than it was last time because there were complaints that with that same group that it didn't go well and I don't want them to go through that again yeah I think one of the the issues before was that we had a contractor and that was part of the challenge and my understanding from the group that did volunteer is that there was more Talking on the behalf of the contractor then listening and getting a response from the committee members So at no time does anybody on this board want to waste community time and energy nor do we want to waste time and time and energy we want to get this as close to the right fit for Rockdale County as possible and so I feel like there's a lot of information that Is in here? For me, a lot of that was the residential piece, getting the ADUs in place and looking at more options for affordable housing as far as kind of the projects we've talked about, like the High Rock Shores has extra lots. Can some of those lots that used to be zoned for modular homes be used for a smaller square footage than the 1,800 square feet? Those kind of things. so that we can see how some of those projects might work and make modifications accordingly. So I think that kind of thing is of great interest to me to try and move forward with those parts of it and then have the rest of it targeted by the committee members to kind of break down and make recommendations.

Understood. Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Anything else? All right.

So we do have some people signed up to speak tonight. OK. Do you have just one? I know. I'm going to take this. I think we'll bring the bring the cards to you, Madam Chair. And so just as a reminder, as of right now, this is one item. So there's ten minutes per side for the balance of the speakers, and you reserve the right to increase that time as long as it's increased for both sides. Okay.

And let me clarify part of what my point was. so that i'm so that i'm cleared so if we considered moving forward with that the pieces that we want to pull out if we wanted to move it forward what direction is it that's needed tonight or can we just handle that offline for what those pieces are

So you would have to figure out the pieces that you are ready to move ahead with. And so when a second read is on your July 14th, which I think is the second Tuesday. Yeah. Those ordinances would be pulled out and you could be you could vote on those if you're ready to approve them or you can defer some others or even send it back through the process. If you all agree you want to do a committee, you may end up sending it back through the process, or you could leave it under unfinished business until it's finished. The key is that if an ordinance changes too much during the process, it needs to go back through. So there's a real possibility that will happen with a committee. So we'll have to see. Does that help?

Yes. And I think, just to speak, use my colleagues i really am interested in the architectural changes for the houses the square footage that we talked about in certain aspects those kind of things i think are really important because as we prepared to do an intergovernmental agreement with the city for the land the land bank yes that would all tie in very nicely to be able to work together in collaboration so okay

Do you have any thoughts on that? I think that we all should come together and say what we would like to see move forward. For them to work on. Yes, for all of us to have an opinion in reference to that.

Do we have to state that tonight?

If you're prepared to do so tonight, you can go through the UDO and say what it is that you're ready to do.

move ahead with or you can take more time to look at it based on some of the comments or I would like to personally like to take more time to look at it I'm not ready to do that tonight yeah more time all right very good so we'll start with public comment then thank you Barbara Somerville This is the way it was given to me.

That's how I was given it.

The ones with numbers, I believe those should go first. We had a mix-up. Some of the BOC, like regular meeting comment cards, were handed out at the front. And so those are the white cards. The yellow cards are our public hearing cards.

Okay. So I'm going to make sure, because this is not how it was handed to me. They were in reverse, and white was on top. I apologize.

I didn't realize somebody, you know, we did that.

So the yellow is... For? This is against?

No, no.

Okay. Let's go over this again. Right.

All right.

I thought we were going to have a group to speak for for a limited time and against for a limited time.

All of these are? They're checked off.

Who are these people in white?

Okay.

Let me just double check this.

Okay.

Yeah. So I'm going to go by this list. number eight okay I don't know why they're like that okay we'll go ahead and get started and so we do have a number of people will go in order we will start yes thank you thank you no no ill intent yes

All right. I love organizations. So you are speaking of my heart. All right.

All right.

Okay.

So our total for speakers tonight is just for one side, correct?

Yeah, so it's 10 minutes, but I don't think we have anybody speaking in favor. I think everybody marked opposition. It all says opposition on the right.

It all says opposition or no checkmark.

interesting so you're in you all right I'm gonna I'm gonna call a roll okay yeah so madam chair I have a solution so this this is a text amendment we don't have hold on hold on this is a text amendment right we don't have that many people signed up I suppose we could keep going because I would think the board would probably be generous enough to extend it to 20 minutes and we could probably hear from everybody tonight what if we went in that order

That would be fine, but there's some marks I just need to make here. So for Mr. Shepard, are you in favor or opposition? Or just want to comment? Okay. All right. And number 10, whoever number 10 is. Okay. All right. And number nine, Cherry Keller.

OK. All right.

And Rhonda Lawson.

I'll let 13. What does it say?

I am present to. Sorry, it wasn't in this one. OK. And number 16.

What's the name? Dr. Noisi. That's for her. Is she speaking? Are you speaking in reference to the data centers or? It doesn't matter. Just is she for or against? Are you speaking tonight? No. Okay. So her name is on there.

yeah so no okay all right we will go ahead and get started first we have eartha levy and it's 20 minutes of total time okay

all right all right thank you good evening commissioners good evening yes I am a resident here for the last 25 years I'm a nurse a nurse educator and army veteran as well as now entrepreneur my road to get here has been through my process with the UDO so It pleased me to hear that the county is considering modifying the special use permit process and that's basically what I'm here to speak on is that this opportunity is not simply to modernize the ordinance but to make sure that it speaks one clear language through my research and my process of looking at what to do with my business has led me to the understanding how complicated this process is so it's very appreciated that you guys are taking time to read and reread and modify as needed basically the people here in Rockdale County deserve an ordinance that clearly defines the appropriate review pathway defines expectations and provides standards that can be applied consistently by the residents, businesses, staff, appointed boards, and elected officials alike. I respectfully urge the county to make clarity and consistency, transparency, central objectives of this update. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Mr. Gerald Shepard? Okay, okay. All right, Amanda Kirkland?

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Amanda Kirkland. I'm a Rockdale County resident. We've been told by planning staff that removing the data center language from the UDO would not allow any more to be permitted in our county. Even when I asked directly, I was told that that would be the case. I don't believe that's true, and I'm going to tell you why. Back in 2023, when the application process for the current DC blocks site began, we had no language about data centers in our ordinances. They applied for rezoning of residential land within established neighborhoods to office institutional, something that we now know should have been designated as heavy industrial. They called it a technology park, and the application only had one building on it. They portrayed it as a quiet office building, and even a few residents who were made aware because of legal requirements welcomed the idea over the idea of a busy distribution center that had been previously proposed. However, the lie they were sold is not the reality they're going to face. Since it's rezoning, the project has expanded intentionally, incrementally, and discretely to include over 120 acres with eight huge three-story buildings and their noisy diesel generators. As this board is aware, because you're the ones who did it, more power substations and a battery backup facility have also been approved for rezoning in that same area. All of this right in the middle of residential area surrounded by thousands of residents. Only 13 days ago, our planning department put forth this brand new heavily edited draft of the UDO. And I'll be honest, it worries me seeing them come here tonight and throwing in different things that weren't included in that draft, such as micro data centers, and also including the word data centers in that table. This takes us back to the stage of being unprotected by clear language with enforceable regulation and restrictions on what can be permitted. Excuse me. Forgive me. I get a little bit emotional about this when it comes to protecting our residents. This removes any and all language that would restrict future applications and allows the planning department to make exceptions through special use permits whenever and whenever they see fit as described in Article 1. This is unacceptable. Our UDO must include ordinances that clearly define what types of data centers can be allowed and which cannot. as well as limits for environmental impact that are clear and enforceable. Approval of this draft would leave residents unprotected and at the mercy of unelected planning department employees writing special use permits at their discretion. We're not fools. Back in 2023, this shell game worked in favor of the developers who would exploit our community for profit. It will not work again. We're watching this time, and we will be for as long as it takes to make sure that our residents are protected. Thank you. Thank you.

Sarah Kennedy.

How is everyone this evening? Good. Before my time starts, well, I guess my time will start. I just wanted to commend that you guys are saying that there are pieces that you're willing to hold back that are clearly not fit and dangerous and need a lot of work. While saying that you have pieces you've worked on a lot that need to be pushed through for other purposes. I think that to reflect what Leslie Lambert said at the last meeting that although She's on the other side of this conversation. There needs to be bridging across that gap and It needs to be for the safety of the people. So thank you for saying that I appreciate that. That's very rational and Democratic, okay Good evening. I want to speak to the total lack of efficacy, consistency, and cohesion that I've found within this document. As I did thoroughly highlight within my report that I personally provided to all three of you, the planning commission, the entire planning department, the UDO email, and to anyone and everyone who asked for its contents. This document is the framework by which our county must adhere to lawfully, the literal commandments, if you will, sorry, by which all acting bodies and departments of this taxpayer-funded entity must operate and conduct itself in alignment with. Within this document is the purpose. Therein the operative functions of this document are listed and its intentions for this legal framework. As I have already spoken to that ad infinitum within my report, it is lengthy and obnoxious, I am only going to list a few of the many ways in which this document fails epically to perform its actual purpose lawfully and the sections to which it violates the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan just to demonstrate the inadequacies on camera. A. To guide and regulate the orderly growth, development, redevelopment, and preservation of Rockdale County in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and with long-term objectives, principles, and standards deemed beneficial to the interest and the welfare of the people. The people. Clearly violated in 1.6, 2.4, 2.8, 3.2, 3.2.2, 5.1, I'll stop there, for just A, as that is only half of the violations of the first violated subsection, and that is just one of 21 subsections that are violated A through U. Factually, this timeline is being rushed, forced, and unlawfully pushed at a pace that is a total failure to these residents, in my opinion, which is also a violation of the UDO item T within the purpose. I'm also saying here and now that after 50 days of having to do other people's jobs, it feels like, when I don't want to be doing any of this at all, I openly volunteer to be a part of any and all bridging UDO task force activity moving forward, if it means that this will be a document that these people deserve. Currently, to me, it's sloppy and it's an open Trojan horse for these projects to slide in here and steal people's equity, their quality of life, and that just won't do. It's unacceptable. This document is begging for litigation in its current condition. We want an extension of the moratorium and critical action taken by you three, who we trust to do this job, to implement protections for the residents, their families, and their children, including their lawful land legacies passed through generations. Please do the right thing here. Demand excellence from your appointed county employees the same way that you demand personal excellence from your business ventures and personal endeavors. Do not demand perfection and excellence in your own personal businesses and endeavors and not demand the same for the people you are up there in those seats because of and meant to be protecting and taking care of. There should be no difference. I will leave you with two quotes as consistency and honor. Those seats should be the shining example. So be it. I'm not a religious person, but I do have a lot of respect for people who are faithful and have faith, whatever that may be. Psalms 82.3, learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause. And a quote that I try to live by, our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter. Dr. Martin Luther King, please make the right choice today. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

And SAP. There's additional seating up here if you'd like. And SAP.

Hello.

Hi.

I lived in Conyers for 26 years, and the latest version of our county UDO has removed data centers as a permitted use in Rockdale. I've had several people ask me, so does that mean we won? I said no, quite the opposite. Under the standard zoning law, removing a use from the UDO simply means that data centers are no longer permitted use, but they could still be approved via alternative zoning pathways, such as special exceptions, conditional use permits, or localized tax amendments. Planning and Development Director White even told us at the planning meeting last week, quote, whatever is ultimately adopted is not chiseled in stone. We can go back at any time to make revisions and amendments to the code, end quote. So just as easily as data centers were removed as a use, they could be put back in. This is extremely unsettling, as is the removal of Article 9.5.3, which provided at least some, albeit inadequate, protections against the negative effects of the data centers. Jessica Paulette stated in reference to the article's removal, quote, Now that use is not on the table and does not have standards, it's not permitted in the future, end quote. However, I learned that even if data centers are entirely banned or removed as permitted uses across all zoning districts, local governments maintain the legal authority to outline these stringent requirements within their UDO. So why were our protections removed? There's absolutely no reason the supplemental standards should have been taken out. Article 1 basically gives the Planning Commission discretionary power to vote and approve a data center on a case-by-case basis after the moratorium under the old UDO rules, not the new. This loophole could allow Project Rock Forge to continue all while you're telling us that no data centers are permitted as a use. In fact, they are already trying to expand their footprint with a rezoning request on two parcels of land on Rock Ridge Road. Yes, we notice the signs. Unless your intent is to cause us harm, Article 9.5.3 must be put back into the UDO along with detailed definitions of all types and scales of data centers so nothing is left to interpretation. Rushing to push this failed version of the UDO through in July is reckless and shows a blatant disregard for the health and well-being of the citizens you serve. The temporary pause of the moratorium means nothing if the final UDO fails to permanently shield us. Following the wake of the Biolab disaster, we know firsthand what happens when industrial oversight falls short. Do not let this happen again. Stand with your constituents today and extend the moratorium at least until February 2027 and send the UDO back to the planning committee for further revisions. Thank you.

Stephanie Thomas. Stephanie. Good evening.

Good evening. All right. Let me pull up my thing. Hold on, y'all. I'm sorry. I wasn't ready.

Good. Go ahead.

All right. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Thomas. I've lived in Conyers for 20 years officially in April. Yay. 11 months ago in 2025, I signed up to serve my community by volunteering for the UDO Stakeholder Committee. Our first meeting was July 30th. Our second meeting was September the 17th and then on November the 12th. The meetings did not go so well as you have heard previously. In the beginning, as residents, we were not allowed to have much input or see the drafts during the iterative process. We were told we would see the draft at the same time it was released to the public, which was in February of 2026. When we finally saw the document, there were many concerns. It felt like asking us to participate had been all for show because while we came prepared to provide meaningful input on how we wanted to live in Rockdale, Those in the planning office along with the collaborative firm and the CPL team seemed to do what they wanted. They delivered the document without us with zero stake in the outcome because the majority of staff who helped to develop it did not and do not live in this county. Releasing the document without input from county residents seemed intentional. Now here we are asking our elected officials to acknowledge the timeline, actual events, and transactions that brought us to this point. It is misleading to say this document has been in the works and the public was aware for more than a year when, according to our own county announcement, the planning director started in January of 2026. The document was not released for public viewing until four months ago in February of 2026. with issues. The collaborative firm and the CPL team's contract ended in April 2026, requiring the planning office to pick up the baton in May, and we have seen several versions thanks to concerned citizens pitching in to try to help. Residents should know they can see the history of UDOs, including all the updates over the last 20 years, but I do agree, as part of that stakeholder committee, it was time for a major overhaul. with the good of the people in mind, though. We have several versions online now because of public outcry. Staff acknowledged it took them two weeks to even notice the public comment portal was down. My question would be, how did that happen? Who got paid for not doing that job? Who was assigned to watch the portal? And was there any type of reprimand for allowing two weeks of time to go by? It says no one was checking for two weeks, including the leadership team. And I don't know about you, but I work for a governmental agency, and if I don't do my job in one day, my boss is coming down my neck. We voted for change because we believed you could get it done well. Not more of the same. The people voiced their hope and their displeasure at the ballot box. We voted for the transparency and service to the people of this county, not big business. Why is the BOC pushing this rushed timeline and getting it right for the people is important. Are you rushing the UDL to meet a deadline for someone else? You have heard too many people provide well-informed information. We just really want to understand. Commissioners, my concerns have not changed since I first started talking in 2025. The health of my family, my friends, my neighbors is paramount. I am a nurse of over 30 years. I hope the people of this county do their own research. Type in a word, a phrase called the Stargate AI project into any search engine and ask yourself at what cost. This document needs to go back to the planning commission to allow the planning office staff to do their job. You have a large group of residents reviewing this document. Meet with us, allow us to help so we can get this right. There is so much research out there about the health implications and environmental risks that I do not understand why mandating the UDO offer protections for the people who live here is an issue. It should not be an issue. We are not comparable to North Carolina or Tennessee, which I am actually from, or too many other places because we are Rockdale. And if anyone would like to receive information, reach out to me, we are rockdale at gmail.com. A smart lady said to me, Stephanie, things move fast. My response, but only as fast as you allow. Our BOC has the ability to control the speed, and I too will leave with a quote. Desire without knowledge is not good. How much more will hasty feet miss this way? Proverbs 19 and two. Y'all have a good evening.

Kenya Anderson.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening. I'm Kenya Anderson, and tonight I'm speaking on behalf of Fletcher Sams, who wanted to be here, but he had a very urgent emergency and requested that we give this statement on his behalf. Okay? My name is Fletcher Sams, and I'm the Executive Director of Altamaha Riverkeeper. We advocate for swimmable, drinkable, and fishable water in the Altamaha Basin which includes all of Rockdale County and the South and Yellow River basins as the headwater to our largest tributary, the Oak, I always pronounce this wrong, Oak McGee?

That's right. Oak McGee.

That's right. Sorry. Data center development has become one of our priority issues, specifically in the larger Oak McGee Basin, where we have 32 planned data center campuses. We are concerned that the draft ordinance in front of the board tonight is lacking important environmental protections that safeguard residents and the water resources of Rockdale County. The Rockdale County comprehensive plan list 6 community goals. On page 6 of the executive summary. One of the goals is to protect the county's water air and soil to curtail pollution preserve the water supply and minimize land disturbance and sensitive areas. The draft ordinance. DOES IMPLEMENT SEVERAL MEANINGFUL PROTECTIONS SUCH AS 14.3.2 EXTENDING THE STATE REQUIRED STREAM BUFFER OF 25 FEET TO A FULL 100 FEET. Several important goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed at all, such as NHR.01 listed on page 42, revised regulations as necessary to protect the integrity of waterways on 303D list of impaired waters. The draft UDO not only does not address this goal, the words 303D and impaired waters are not defined or even used once in the document. Additionally, the current draft ordinance has several technical errors that should be addressed before adoption. An example would be using the term technology centers on Table 2.4 for use in an office industrial, while that term is not defined or used elsewhere in the draft UDO. or adding data center to table 6.2.2 while not defining the permitted special use or prohibited use keep going, in any of the non-residential land use categories. While there is promise in the draft legislation before you tonight, we believe the most critical environmental regulations the county should include in the UDO have been redlined out. The regulations under 9.5.3 are a good start towards safeguarding the county, and we believe that data center regulations need to be included in any final ordinance especially considering the project rock forge is awaiting the new udo before moving their application forward We have been working on data center legislation with multiple municipalities and the watershed and are more than happy to work with Rockdale County to provide technical assistance in writing draft legislation that accomplishes the intent of the commissioners to safeguard the county. We have found that using the approach for compiling the comprehensive plan by including members of the public and workshop sessions has helped other nearby municipalities tackle this important issue on the front end. We urge the board to extend the moratorium on data centers tonight until proper protections for the county are in place. Thank you for your attention. And that's, again, is on behalf of Fletcher Sams. I know I spoke on his behalf. Thank you very much. I just want to say thank you for letting us speak. And my own personal comment is always say this what is the sustainability of any project that you bring to the county meaning if and or when something goes wrong we need to make sure the UDO reflects those protections for either compensation definitely protection but compensation or some type of recourse for something of this size because precedence has already shown that things can go wrong with data centers. We don't have enough information. I did attend the Rock Forge community meeting last night. And I got a lot of questions answered. But I also have a lot more. And that's why we hope you all take this into consideration. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk.

So the time is now expired? Yes. OK. All right, next we have speaking in favor is Mr. Vandersack.

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioners, county employees, and to the gallery, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Johannes Vanderspeck. I live in East Mill Development. Many of you know me as John Speck because I keep it short, sweet, and simple. I reside with a near shot of the racetrack we call 212 at the intersection of Tucker Mill and 212, which is a well-known area of high discourse.

I have one ask of the county.

The county has been given an option to look at the aspects of the UDO and take the pieces without controversy in question. I ask that those pieces without controversy in question be considered to move forward because the county has a Pandora's box in the old UDO. And the county has a second open Pandora's box in that the moratoriums and all of the activities that have been put on hold has created an environment where a bunch of legal sharks are starting to circle and saying, hey, wait a minute, there's a bunch of money invested. And we're blocked from that. I'd hate to see the county go through that litigation. As discussed by several people, including myself, I believe you have copies of the information I provided, as has the gentleman here to my left. There are about 20 different various components that need to be adjusted in the existing proposed UDO, and I have full confidence if the Board is willing, I will be happy to step up and be another voice looking and another set of eyes looking at the proposed UDO to move sections along. I'd be happy to do that. In addition, I don't invade the county's position. This is a Pandora's box that has existed for 20 years. To try to slow the process down, you've opened up a second Pandora's box. But what's so is the county has a duty to do that and I'm glad to see it's being executed and trying to be done on a timely basis. I'm also glad that an alternate timeline was proposed. because I think a lot of what's in the UDO now is ready to go, but another section is not ready, and there are certain parts that are interconnected that need to be addressed. If the county does nothing, everything goes back to the old UDO. If the moratorium continues, the county is facing some conflicts that could escalate, and they escalate into our taxpayer dollars and in our pockets, and nobody wishes that on the county. I cringe every time I hear about an executive session where the county is going to talk about litigations and employees because I know that's in my wallet. um so the logical move is to move forward on any part that is not in contestant i would ask that the county consider pushing those pieces and the whole comment section in such an orderly manner so we could same pie chart graph showing what is not in contention what is questioned and challenged so that the county And the commissioners, as well as all of us sitting in the gallery and watching on the recording, can see, okay, nobody has any issues with this section. It can move forward. It's got a green light. Oh, wait a minute, there's issues to solve in this section. And that we have a little bit longer lead time than six days between when the component is released and when it is actually up for being passed to the Board of Commissioners. I recognize that we are all collectively going to be holding our noses in this process because no UDO is going to please everyone. You three are in the position of King Solomon. And that's not a good position. You've got to decide whose baby this is and which part of what baby goes to whom. And that is a challenge that I do not envy you with. Nobody will be happy with the decision. That's probably going to demonstrate that it is a profoundly well done decision and that nobody is pleased. But at least by moving forward, it allows the county to proceed forward, collect revenue and fees that the county is duly owed, and allows the county to progress further. Thank you very much for the time.

Thank you. All right. The next person I have in support is Rhonda Lawson.

good evening my name is Rhonda law the microphone my name is Rhonda Lawson and I appreciate the work that goes into this you do I spent months reading it because I care deeply about the future of Rockdale County I just have a few questions I hope the county can answer for me publicly I think if everyone in the in Rockdale County knew one thing that would benefit us is because our property taxes just went up almost double, how much taxes Rockdale County is gonna get from the sale of almost 450 acres in the first year? Could you tell everyone so they'll know how much money we're gonna get in that first year of 400? Because I know my one, no, I want them. Excuse me, excuse me.

We're not doing that.

I'm sorry, Miss Lawson, please proceed.

And this is we're listening. We're not responding.

Oh, so you're not here to answer questions.

I would like to hear your question.

Yeah, we want to hear what you have to say.

Okay, all right, so that was one question. I wanted to know how much we would stand to gain in that first year of selling 450 acres when... My mere two acres, I paid $5,000. But anyway, my other first question is, today's presentation states that if one complete application is filed before the new DO takes effect, related applications may continue under the previous ordinance for up to 24 months. Can you explain exactly what qualifies as a related application? Who determines whether later applications remain in substantial conformity and whether the public will receive notice of those related applications? The second question I'd like to understand the long-term vision How does the county expect this new you do to benefit? Rockdale County residents neighborhoods and existing businesses over the next five years with specific outcomes or Benchmarks will you use to measure whether those goals have been achieved? I The third, what potential navigated impacts has the county identified such as effects on traffic, infrastructure, water, resources, emergency services, existing businesses, or residential neighborhoods, and what safeguards are included in the UDO to minimize those impacts? Finally, If after five years the results are not what the county expected, what process exists for residents to propose amendments and for the county to make changes based on that experience?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good questions. All right, is there anybody else in favor?

I'm in favor and against.

Well, it's the time for in favor, if you'd like to speak about that.

I'm in favor of most of it.

Come to the podium. Feel free.

Thank you. Paul Stalkup. I live on Monterey Drive in Lake Capri. We're dealing with a 450-page, plus or minus a page or two, UDO. I have several concerns. The main one is we were given or had access to a printed proposed UDO. On the Thursday that that was presented to the Planning Commission, I found out, other people knew, that on the prior Friday, there were changes made. Section 9.5, excuse me, Article 9.5.3 was removed because we were told the data centers were not going to be allowed in the county, so we did not need any of the, we didn't need that article because it wouldn't apply. The problem I have is I believe that Friday notice violated the state law for the seven days notice required for changes to the UDO. There's a seven-day requirement. It was posted on Friday. Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday is six days. And whether that violates the entire UDO, that may be for Cotter-Bague to figure out.

Yes, that would be where that would be placed. But not me.

There is a new zoning change application for a new data center. that would not be within the location requirements of the section that was deleted. So I think that's an issue. If we're going to allow data centers, we need something like Article 9.5.3 for setbacks, water usage, electric usage. We need to keep that in. And then if at some point a data center gets in that would violate these, then they can't get in. So for the other 445 pages, I have no problem with. But with the data center, leave it in. But there's nothing that I saw that says data centers can't be here in the UDO. So those are my problems. Other than that, the 400 and some pages, good to go.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to I would like to take that last comment and just say that our planning and development team has spent an inordinate amount of time working towards the greater good. And we know that any time you take a document like that, it is not going to be perfect. A lot of what we are striving for is to eliminate some of the blight in the community, strengthen the ordinances for the greater good. It's not perfect. It's a work in progress. We are getting closer, but that's why I recommended that maybe we take down the pieces that aren't in contention. and move some of those forward to get those off the plate and not distract us from the other things that we do want to focus on and make sure we get closer to being right. Yeah, well, we'll let the legal people look at that. Yeah. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, are there any other needs for the evening?

Not if we don't have any more people in support of. That was the only other case that we had tonight.

I'm also in support of most of the video.

You can come tell me your support. Sure. That'll be fine. I'll change your card.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for the chance to speak tonight. Like I said, I'm in favor of most of the UDO. I realize a lot of work and time and effort goes into these documents. And are you? I'm Alexandria Harvey. Yes. I've been in Rockdale County my entire life, born and raised here. So I am a Rockdale native. I'm here tonight. because I found vague language in reviewing the UDO, specifically referring to low frequency noise emitted by data centers. I know a little bit about sound. You could say it's a special interest of mine. I've studied it extensively throughout the course of my life. I'm a graduate of the Atlanta Institute of Music for Sound Engineering with one of the highest GPAs in my graduating class in my third trimester of pregnancy.

Thank you.

Tonight I would like to extend some of that knowledge to you all with hopes that we can come to a solution for a potentially medically threatening situation. We spoke a little the other day after the meeting about being granola moms, proud granola moms. We care about what goes into our bodies, into our children's bodies, into our residents' bodies. We have free range chickens. I do organic gardening. We read labels. We pay attention. So when I found out that there were data centers being proposed in Rockdale County and we already have them here, my red flags went up. Data centers or technology parks, along with battery energy storage systems or BES, produce low frequency noise due to the continuous functioning of large mechanical cooling and power systems. Low frequency noise, LFN, or infrasound is any frequency that falls below the threshold of normal human hearing.

typically any frequency below 20 hertz.

Elephant is extremely difficult to block and travels through solid objects, including doors, walls, floors, windows, as well as the ground, causing severe adverse effects to surrounding plant life, animals, and our human bodies. While LFN may not be detectable by the human ear, it's extremely dangerous and can cause permanent hearing damage, vestibular issues, trigger increase in the stress hormone cortisol, causing chronic fatigue, headaches, and persistent sleep disturbances, adverse cardiovascular effects such as vibroacoustic disease, which is a thickening of cardiovascular structures along with respiratory issues and severe physical and psychological distress. Approximately one in five adults in the US struggle with a mental health condition. While a precise head count does not yet exist, that means that Rockdale County, which has a population of about 99,430 residents, nearly 20,000 adults in our community are experiencing mental illness annually. Adults in the community report an average of almost six days a month where they feel mentally unwell. A recent student health study in Rockdale County reported that 78 percent of the youth in our area are experiencing stressful conditions with seven percent of them seriously considering suicide. On top of these staggering percentages, our system is strained and there's only about one healthcare provider available for every 596 people in our area seeking professional care for their mental well-being. We simply cannot add strain to this increase in psychological distress in this area. Low frequency noise is amplified when it reaches the ground due to the ground effect. When sounds transmitted outdoors, it reaches a receiver through two different pathways. The direct wave, which is transmitted straight from the source, and the reflected wave, which is bouncing off of the ground. Because low frequencies are composed of very long wavelengths, the direct wave and the ground reflected wave typically arrive in sync, a phenomenon known as constructive interference, which can amplify the sound up to six decibels. Whereas high frequencies lose their energy through ground absorption, low frequencies retain their power and benefit from ground reflections. Hard surfaces like concrete, asphalt, or granite reflect nearly all of this acoustic energy, maximizing this amplification. To put the dangers in perspective, Rockdale County is dominated by 130 square miles of bedrock defined by granite rich metamorphic formations. This granite bedrock is shallow and typically only lies two to four feet below the topsoil. It's imperative that the proper risk mitigation measures are put into place to prevent low frequency noise exposure, along with extensive and transparent frequency evaluation practices. Standard decibel meters will fail to provide the accurate measurements needed to detect low frequency noise, as they are designed to measure audible hearing between 20 hertz to 20,000 hertz, where low frequency noise is found below 20 hertz. These meters are typically designed with high-pass filters that intentionally block out frequencies below 20 hertz and would prove to be inadequate. They also use A-weighting, which mimics the human range of hearing and would aggressively cut any frequency below 500 hertz. In order to accurately track infrasound and low-frequency noise, specialized equipment and software must be utilized. Infrasonic-grade microphones are microbarometers capable of capturing frequencies down to 0.1 hertz Software that supports the G weighting scale, which is the international standard for assessing infrasound perception and or the use of seismographs would need to be employed in any accurate detection of elephants. Without the proper use of equipment to trap low frequency noise, along with the utilization of a precise application of measuring low frequency noise, our beloved residents of our community, our representatives, our pets, our wildlife, and our plant life within our area are all at great risk of exposure to these frequencies and the adverse effects that will most certainly manifest from their exposure. We cannot afford for our overall health to decrease due to an unnecessary addition to our community. The cost simply does not outweigh the benefit. Our current UDO must be updated to protect the citizens of Rockdale County, and we must have a moratorium put in place until September 2027. Thank you. Thank you, guys. All right.

Does that conclude public comment? OK, great. Yes. This was the only other application. And did planning have anything else to present tonight? OK. And did the board have any more comments?

All right. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you for your participation tonight.