Jones County commissioners and local stakeholders on Tuesday reviewed a draft zoning text amendment that would classify data centers into tiers based on size and resource demands and place the largest projects in the countys industrial park.

"For those that don't know me, I'm Jason Risner. I'm the county administrator," Jason Risner said at the start of the session, describing the meeting as an "open discussion" intended to inform a multi-step rulemaking process.

The proposal, presented by Commissioner Kitchens, divides data centers into tiered levels. "There are basically 4 types of data centers," Commissioner Kitchens said, describing Level 1 as smaller facilities (under about 20,000 square feet) that could be permitted in a C-2 commercial district with a conditional-use permit; Level 2 as larger industrial facilities (roughly 20,000 to 100,000 square feet) subject to more conditions; and Level 3 as "mega" campuses that the county should confine to its designated industrial park and let the Development Authority apply additional standards.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the tiered approach is intended to let the county welcome smaller server farms and commercial facilities while protecting water, streams, noise-sensitive neighborhoods and the countys groundwater from high-demand, purpose-built facilities that are expensive to decommission and hard to repurpose.

What the draft would require: Participants discussed adding application checklists and pre-application environmental impact assessments that document projected water and energy use, noise modeling, and wastewater handling. Kitchens and others emphasized a written decommissioning plan and financial assurance (bond or escrow) so the county and community would not be left with an abandoned, specialized building.

Community and technical concerns: Fletcher Sams of Altamaha Riverkeeper warned about the long-term risks of purpose-built facilities: "Should the business go under... what you end up with is a building that'll stay abandoned because it can't readily be adapted into something more useful," he said, a concern echoed by others. County engineers and consultants described the countys uneven groundwater resources across the industrial park and cautioned that large water draws could shift demand onto the county's municipal system.

Cooling systems and water policy drew extended discussion. Several speakers recommended banning open-loop evaporative cooling and favoring closed-loop or other low-water systems, but others cautioned that prescribing a single technology could block future improvements. The panel debated requiring proof that county water or a municipal supplier can serve proposed projects and whether on-site wells should be permitted for larger facilities.

Buffers, landscaping and runoff protections were also raised. Participants suggested planting regionally appropriate native vegetation in required buffers to reduce irrigation demand and help screen facilities from nearby residences. The group noted existing state processes for work near state waters and discussed whether the county should require larger-than-state buffers for projects with higher contamination or runoff risk.

Construction, noise and enforcement: Commissioners and residents asked whether the county should limit hours of construction, set noise standards, and clarify enforcement tools. Planning staff noted enforcement options range from administrative citations to court orders; participants observed that fines alone may be insufficient deterrents for very large corporate operators and discussed stronger remedies and stop-work authorities.

Public benefits and economic tradeoffs: City representatives and development officials urged balanced consideration of economic benefits and local protections. A city official (Mayor Pro Tem) thanked the commissioners for convening the discussion and said, "This county has invested a lot of money in an industrial park with the intent to help the tax base for the county." Staff offered a highly conditional estimate — presented as illustrative, not final — that a very large project could generate tens of millions of dollars in early-year property-tax revenue, with revenue profiles changing over time as equipment and depreciation cycles occur.

Next steps: Planning staff said the text amendment has been advertised for Planning Commission review on Nov. 17; the commission could table the item to allow additional work. No formal vote was taken at the work session.

What remains unresolved: The group left multiple technical items for later work, including: (1) precise size/power thresholds for tiers (participants suggested more granularity may be needed for very large projects); (2) detailed metrics and monitoring protocols for water use and noise; (3) required terms for decommissioning financial assurance; (4) whether wells should be allowed for large projects; and (5) specific community-benefit expectations and how they would be enforced or negotiated.

The Planning Commission hearing is the next formal step in the amendment process; the board and staff said they expect continued stakeholder input and follow-up technical analysis prior to any final zoning change.