Group sues Statesboro over data center rezoning
A nonprofit group and individuals have filed a lawsuit against the City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development LLC. The lawsuit challenges the city council's approval of a rezoning that permits a 99-megawatt data center campus on Burkhalter Road, alleging procedural violations and unconstitutionality of the city's data center ordinance. Petitioners are asking the court to invalidate the rezoning and ordinance.
Coastal Community United, a nonprofit organization, along with 10 individuals, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development LLC in Bulloch County Superior Court. The lawsuit challenges the Statesboro City Council's August 18 approval of rezoning application RZ 26-07-05, which changed a 26.49-acre property at 6539 Burkhalter Road from residential (R-4) to office/business (O) to allow 4 AM Development to build a 99-megawatt data center campus.
The petitioners argue that the city's approval disregarded its own rules and state laws. They contend that while the city's June 2 amendment to its Unified Development Code permitted data centers in 'O' districts, it aimed to prohibit 'hyperscale' facilities, a category they claim the 99-megawatt project falls into. The lawsuit also alleges the city failed to conduct necessary traffic, environmental impact, and hazardous materials studies, and did not consult the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Named as defendants, the City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development LLC are facing six counts, including requests for remand of the rezoning decision, violations of due process and equal protection, ultra vires action, inverse condemnation, and a request for declaratory judgment. The petitioners seek to have the rezoning decision declared invalid and void, and the city's data center ordinance declared unconstitutional.
According to the petition, the filing under Georgia’s Zoning Procedures Law stays all legal proceedings related to the rezoning. The City of Statesboro confirmed receiving the summons on September 21 and stated its intention to respond within 30 days, but declined further comment due to pending litigation.