Data centers

Urged the board to revisit the data center approval based on due-diligence standards and criticized the 65-decibel noise limit as unacceptable for lifelong exposure.

Asked the board to direct staff to begin reviewing the data center ordinance now — setbacks, noise, water, generators — rather than waiting for the next application.

Cited firsthand accounts of data center harms nationwide, questioned long-term viability and decommissioning, and asked how residents' concerns can be genuinely considered.

Claimed generators were ordered two years ago, suggesting the project was decided behind closed doors, and called the project a permanent harm to the community.

Lives 100 yards from the data center entrance; questioned who pays for Duke transmission upgrades and argued the data center consumes power that could serve job-creating manufacturers.

A lifelong Lower Moncure Road resident and brain tumor survivor urged commissioners to prioritize quality of life over money and jobs.

Criticized the county's press release as empty monitoring language and demanded noise limits of 50 dB day/40 dB night, saying the board has lost residents' trust.

Said she and others warned the board as far back as October 2025 and were ignored; urged the board to stop data centers.

Said rezoning to industrial caused the problems, thanked Commissioner Reives, and asked for resident involvement, county water extension, and tax incentives for affected residents.

Called on commissioners to update the UDO now so the next data center pays its own way and protects residents.

Said the county has repeatedly placed industrial uses near his Deep River home without telling residents beforehand, and asked for transparency.

A Lower Moncure Road resident said the community was misled about the rezoning and urged commissioners not to approve data centers near homes.

Asked pointed questions about the likelihood of construction and cybersecurity oversight, noting $900 million in backing and foreign data-handling concerns.

Argued making data centers a permitted use stripped residents of future public hearings and elevated corporate property rights over homeowners' rights.

Said the company hasn't been truthful and, drawing on her father's toxic-waste cleanup career, urged the county to require upfront cleanup funds in trust before construction.

A USDA-registered farmer whose property is surrounded by the project said he's documenting sound levels daily and warned of CyrusOne's noise complaints and litigation elsewhere.

A local veterinarian cited research on noise effects on livestock and wildlife, diesel generator decibel levels, and a Cambridge study on data center heat islands.

A repeat speaker since August, she questioned the scale of the hyperscale campus versus what was originally touted, cited CyrusOne citations and lawsuits, and asked for a moratorium.

Compared the situation to the 2014-15 coal ash fight, describing a playbook of targeting uninformed communities and urging the county to say no.

A veteran of the successful anti-co-ash campaign, she praised the crowd's activism and expressed confidence data centers can be stopped.

Said hundreds have asked for a moratorium over the past year and quoted Proverbs about shutting ears to the cry of the poor.

Said the developers lied, cheated with NDAs, and are stealing the community's peace and quiet, and asked for a moratorium.

The final commenter asked the county to adopt the strongest possible UDO protections for water, environment, and fixed-income residents regardless of the project's fate.

A Monkey (Chatham County) resident urged the public to look at online petitions, arguing the pipeline and utility needs tie the data center question to regional energy politics.

Said the developer promised a quiet business park with 500 jobs but is now building a 430-acre data center campus with a 90-megawatt draw and only 40 permanent jobs, and urged the companies to withdraw.

A computer science student raised concerns about a projected 7.6 GW energy demand increase and potential 18% power bill increases for North Carolina residents.

Asked commissioners to put residents first, questioning electricity and water use, taxpayer costs, and secrecy, and urged a no vote.

A business owner and former teacher warned of resource strain and asked the board to vote on a moratorium, saying she's disturbed by the secrecy.

A lifelong resident warned that low-frequency infrasound from data centers can't be stopped by walls or distance and can cause health effects, and urged responsible development.

Speaking for the third time, said the board hasn't been listening, called data centers the next bust, and renewed his call for a moratorium.

Detailed the developer's track record in Virginia — no built hyperscale centers, pressure tactics, and revised permit requests — and questioned the noise study's generator assumptions.

Described infrasound's physiological effects on humans and animals and urged commissioners to consider the long-term consequences.

Argued infrasound penetrates walls and standard zoning setbacks won't help, and demanded a moratorium with proper multi-weighted sound measurement.

Raised concerns about whether county fire departments are prepared for lithium battery fires at the proposed data center, citing her Ohio experience where a data center fire burned over 30 hours and caused $450 million in damages.

Asked whether the board will form an independent citizen committee of scientists to study communities that already host data centers.

Questioned whether the review process fits a $900 million project, asking whether the county has the fire, hazmat, and emergency capacity for a worst-case event.

Cited Google's Oregon data center consuming a third of a city's water and argued a facility using power equal to 100,000 homes doesn't belong in light industrial.

Said he's speaking up for his neighbors and vulnerable residents even though the project wouldn't directly affect his end of town.

Listed unaddressed questions — e-waste, CO2 emissions, water discharge, runoff — and asked for a moratorium and a new zoning classification for data centers.

Lives under two miles from the site; questioned how a data center qualifies as 'light' industrial given 65-85 dB noise levels and heat output.

Retired federal attorney; submitted a petition with about 600 signatures and argued a planning board member's changed position proves material confusion justifying a moratorium.

Said residents don't want or need a data center and don't want their rural way of life and health sold to the highest bidder.

Raised transparency concerns: out-of-state consultants who supported the UDO amendments had worked on the proposed project without disclosing it.

Said constituents 'got played' on the moratorium vote and threatened legal action if a permit is granted.

Questioned what the county gains from a $900 million project with only about 50 jobs, and worried about his inherited land's value and water use.

Lives across from the proposed substation; played a recording of the expected noise and asked for a moratorium.

Father of three living near the site; raised health concerns about infrasound and EMF exposure, citing his son's seizures from a smart meter.

Demanded the board reject data center development and enact a moratorium, saying the community has spoken clearly against it.

Called for civility on the board, thanked residents who keep showing up, and urged updating the UDO on data centers before it's too late.