Paulding County Residents File Lawsuit Challenging Data Center Zoning
The controversy over data centers in Paulding County has now reached the courts. On October 17, 2026, No Data Centers Paulding County announced that residents filed a lawsuit in Paulding County Superior Court challenging the county’s Technology Park Overlay District, the zoning designation that allows data centers in certain areas of the county.
The lawsuit names Paulding County as the defendant and challenges Text Amendment 2025-06, along with subsequent changes made to the overlay district. According to the organization’s announcement, residents are seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating the challenged zoning amendments. Their argument centers largely on whether the county followed the proper public notification and zoning procedures before adopting the changes.
For residents who haven’t been following the issue closely, this goes back to September 9, 2025, when the Paulding County Board of Commissioners approved an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance establishing the Technology Park Overlay District, also known as the TPOD.
An overlay district adds zoning regulations to designated properties. In this case, the district established requirements for data center development in certain locations. Data centers house computer servers, networking equipment, and other systems that support everything from websites and banking transactions to cloud storage and artificial intelligence. Larger facilities can require significant amounts of electricity, cooling equipment, and supporting infrastructure.
The county’s regulations address several concerns, including setbacks, screening, noise, electrical capacity, and water availability. Section 220-40.13 requires applicants to analyze water needs and obtain confirmation from the water provider that adequate capacity exists before the county approves a land-disturbance permit. Section 220-40.14 also requires confirmation that the electricity provider has the capacity and willingness to serve the proposed development.
The original overlay didn’t remain unchanged. On December 9, 2025, commissioners approved another amendment affecting the district’s boundaries, identifying approximately 1,314 acres within the overlay at that time. The amendment also addressed a 200-foot undisturbed buffer involving an identified parcel. Additional changes concerning boundaries and buffer requirements followed on April 14, 2026.
Those dates matter because the lawsuit challenges the process behind these zoning decisions, not simply opposition to an individual development.
According to the residents’ October 17 announcement, the plaintiffs allege that the city did not properly provide required notices before approving the zoning amendments. Their concerns include written notice to affected property owners, newspaper notices, posted signs, and opportunities for public participation.
The plaintiffs also question whether the city completed adequate studies and supporting findings before establishing the overlay district. Some own property within or adjacent to the Bethel Church area, where proposed data center development has drawn considerable attention.
Residents raised concerns about possible noise from mechanical equipment, vibration, construction traffic, lighting, effects on private wells, and potential changes in surrounding property values.
Attorney Robert Abney Fricks, Sr., of Fricks Person Tourville, LLC, is representing the residents, according to the organization’s announcement.
The lawsuit seeks a court determination concerning the validity of the zoning amendments and requests additional relief related to their enforcement. These are allegations by the plaintiffs, not judicial findings. The county can respond, and the court will determine whether the challenged actions complied with applicable laws.
The public opposition to data centers was already growing well before the lawsuit was filed. On July 14, FOX 5 Atlanta reported that residents had filled county meetings and protested outside the Paulding County Government Complex. Much of the discussion focused on proposed facilities near established neighborhoods, particularly around Bethel Church Road and Highway 92.
Two weeks later, on July 28, commissioners unanimously approved a temporary moratorium on data centers. FOX 5 reported that the restriction was intended to give county officials time to review development regulations and consider possible changes. The moratorium is scheduled to remain in place through January 1, 2027.
However, applications already pending before the moratorium was adopted were reportedly excluded from the restriction. That means the moratorium did not necessarily stop every proposed development from continuing through the approval process.
The lawsuit is a separate matter. Even with a temporary moratorium in place, residents’ legal challenge still targets the zoning provisions adopted in 2025.
It’s also worth noting that a property located inside the Technology Park Overlay District doesn’t necessarily mean the county has approved construction of a data center on that property. Zoning eligibility, submitted applications, construction approvals, and completed facilities are separate stages. The county’s ordinance includes additional development requirements applicants must meet.
Some questions go beyond zoning procedures. Residents have also expressed concerns about the long-term impact of large data centers on utilities and surrounding communities.
Electricity is one of the most frequently discussed issues. Large data centers can require significant electrical capacity, sometimes involving new substations, transmission infrastructure, or utility improvements. Whether a project would require those improvements, who would pay for them, and whether customers would face additional costs depends on the proposed facility and its agreements with the utility provider.
Water usage is another subject residents have questioned. Data centers use different cooling systems, and their water requirements can vary substantially. The amount needed for a specific facility would depend on its design, size, equipment, and cooling method. That makes the actual water-capacity documents and proposed operating plans important records for the public to review.
Noise is also a concern for homeowners near proposed locations. Cooling equipment, backup generators, and other mechanical systems can produce sound, although the level experienced by surrounding properties depends on the equipment, building design, distance, screening, and applicable noise restrictions.
Economically, large data center projects may represent substantial private investment and generate additional property tax revenue. Construction can also provide temporary employment, while completed facilities require ongoing maintenance, technical support, security, and other services.
For every proposed project, it hasn’t been established exactly how much local tax revenue it would generate, how many permanent jobs it would create, whether it would involve development incentives, or what public infrastructure expenses it might require. Those figures would need to be evaluated individually rather than assuming every data center would produce the same financial benefits.
Residents now have two separate issues to follow. The first is the lawsuit challenging the legality of the earlier zoning amendments. The second is the county’s ongoing consideration of what its future data center regulations should look like.
The Planning Commission is also scheduled to discuss possible changes to the classification of certain data-processing and battery-energy-storage uses on November 17, 2026. The proposed changes reportedly include consideration of special-use-permit requirements. Those proposals have not been adopted simply because they appear on a meeting agenda.
With the current moratorium scheduled to expire January 1, 2027, commissioners will need to determine how to proceed with the county’s development regulations. The lawsuit could add further uncertainty, depending on the court proceedings and any decisions that follow.
For now, the October 17 lawsuit announcement provides the plaintiffs’ account of their allegations and what they are asking the court to do. This article has not independently confirmed the complete court docket, any formal response from Paulding County, or subsequent judicial decisions.
One part of this controversy that deserves attention is how much information residents receive before significant land-use decisions are made. Zoning amendments can affect large areas, sometimes without the same public attention generated by an individual rezoning application. Many homeowners don’t start following the process until development is proposed near their property, by which time some underlying decisions may already be made.
That doesn’t establish that the county failed to provide legally required notice in this case. That is one of the questions raised by the lawsuit. It does, however, leave room for a broader discussion about whether local governments should communicate more directly with nearby property owners when major changes are being considered.
Paulding County residents have expressed very different opinions about data centers. Some believe the potential economic benefits warrant consideration, while others worry about siting large facilities near homes, churches, and existing communities. Both the financial benefits and potential impacts deserve examination using the actual plans and supporting records.
As this moves through the courts, the most important documents will include the original zoning amendments, the county’s public notice records, the filed petition, the county’s response, and any orders issued by the judge. Those records will help establish what happened during the approval process and what legal questions remain unresolved.
Residents can also follow upcoming Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners meetings through the county’s official website.
For those living near the Technology Park Overlay District, have you received any direct notices about proposed zoning changes or development applications? And for everyone else, do you believe nearby property owners should receive individual notification when zoning amendments could allow major industrial or technology facilities near established neighborhoods?
It’s a question worth discussing, regardless of where someone stands on data centers.
Sources and public records
- No Data Centers Paulding County, October 17, 2026, lawsuit announcement: https://nodatacenterspaulding.com/paulding-county-residents-file-lawsuit-challenging-technology-park-overlay-district/
- Paulding County Unified Development Ordinance, Technology Park Overlay District regulations and amendment history: https://www.paulding.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11290
- FOX 5 Atlanta, July 14, 2026, coverage of public opposition: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/paulding-public-meetings-overflow-residents-fight-data-centers
- FOX 5 Atlanta, July 30, 2026, coverage of the moratorium: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/paulding-county-approves-data-center-moratorium-freezing-projects
- Paulding County Government, official meeting agendas, minutes, and public documents: https://www.paulding.gov/
Publication Disclaimer: This article is provided for community information and public discussion. Information is based on publicly available records, news reporting, and statements attributed to the organizations involved. Claims made in pending litigation are allegations and have not been established as facts by the court. Information may change as legal proceedings and government decisions continue. Paulding County Uncensored is an independent community platform, and we welcome documented corrections or updates.
