Data center UDO standards

Laid out six demands: refer the noise standard to the JPC, fix the $100/day fine, hold hearings on the three petitions, and get legal advice on the county's exposure.

An economic development advocate spoke in support of the data center ordinance, saying it creates tax revenue without straining schools or roads and keeps decision-making local.

A Lower Monkey Road resident strongly opposed the data center, warning about fracking, aquifer contamination, water use, noise, and grid strain, and urged the county to make rules so restrictive the project can't come in.

Opposed the UDO, said he called a Virginia anti-data-center coalition leader, warned of rising electric bills, and urged a one-year moratorium.

A Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League advocate opposed the UDO, urged a decommissioning bond, warned against fracking 'synergy,' and quoted Jurassic Park on acting before thinking.

Spoke in support, comparing data centers to past transformative technologies like railroads and the internet, and said the standards protect the community.

An Angel Road resident who's been attending since October opposed the UDO, citing city council concerns about the 500-foot buffer, the lowered fine, e-waste, and asking where the rumored $5 billion data center is.

A mechanical engineer from upstate New York specializing in data center cooling supported the ordinance, explaining that modern closed-loop air-cooled systems use almost no water and don't discharge harmful wastewater.

An acoustical consultant from Dallas working in data centers supported the UDO, saying data center noise is predictable and the ordinance's noise limits and enforcement protocols are well designed.

A Florida environmental engineer supporting the UDO said data centers produce far less hazardous waste than typical industry and abandoned sites would likely be repurposed, not left as blight.

A Sanford resident opposed the UDO in its current state, saying responsibility between utilities, the data center, the county, and the city still needs clarification.

Opposed the UDO citing loopholes, questioned why SAGA brought experts after calling the project a bad fit, and pressed for a moratorium over water, power, and tax-exemption worries.

Opposed the UDO as written but supportive of the concept, said the substantive limits (decibels, Duke Energy power requirement) are sound, and urged a moratorium to verify it's the best the county can legally do.

A Sanford resident and former anti-landfill activist opposed the UDO, demanded a 12-month moratorium, called the $100/day penalty 'ludicrous,' and accused the process of being rushed and predetermined.

The CEO of Central Electric Membership Cooperative supported the UDO, explaining that large-load customers pay upfront for their own substations and infrastructure so existing members' rates aren't affected.

A data center policy expert from Atlanta supporting the UDO said Lee County's framework is ahead of most of the Southeast and stressed data centers aren't extractive industries — AI is only 10% of their energy use.

The Deep River Riverkeeper supported rules in principle but argued for a moratorium first, warning that the county's water system can't treat synthetic chemicals like PFOS until 2029 while a data center could be built in 18 months.

The SAGA president, visibly emotional, defended the experts he invited, said SAGA does not support fracking, detailed the ordinance's protections, and stressed that data centers already operate across North Carolina.

A resident who arrived late asked the SAGA experts pointed questions — what's positive about a data center in your backyard, and do closed-loop systems ever need flushing — and concluded a moratorium is still needed.