Three Effingham County residents are suing Effingham County and asking a Superior Court judge to invalidate an ordinance they say was adopted in violation of Georgia law and local ordinances and paved the way for a 1,400 acre data center.
Dr. Michelle Finch-Mincey, Lehman Mincey Jr., and Raymond Carver filed the 14-page complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a direct challenge to a zoning decision in Effingham County Superior Court on Thursday. The lawsuit, which includes some 300 pages of exhibits, targets a local ordinance that received final approval from the Effingham County Board of Commissioners last month. The plaintiffs are represented by Greg Gilluly and Brent Savage of Savannah-based Savage Turner Pinckney Savage Sprouse and Gilluly.
The suit alleges that government officials “ignored the County’s own rules, violated laws, acted with conflicted interests, and engaged in private meetings,” among other things.
“A country premised on the first three words of the Preamble to the United States Constitution, “We the People,” underlies the principle of not only our national government but also our local governments. Government power should come from the consent of the people, not multi-billion-dollar corporations having secret meetings with public officials. ” – excerpt from the suit.
A Challenge to the Zoning Ordinance Process
The suit does not attack the data center specifically, but challenges what the plaintiffs allege was a lack of government transparency and an unlawful process used to change Effingham County’s zoning laws while residents were unaware of what was occurring.
At issue is Ordinance 2026-352, an amendment to the county’s Permitted Use Table that the plaintiffs say expanded where data centers may operate in Effingham County. The suit states that the zoning decision should have included a public hearing under the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law. It also cites Effingham County’s own zoning ordinance, which requires two public hearings: one in front of the Planning Board and a second before the County Commission.
According to the complaint, neither occurred before commissioners gave the ordinance final approval.
The lawsuit contends that this was a “culmination of a multi-year scheme to intentionally hide details about the multi-billion-dollar AI Data Center “Project Camellia” that was negotiated by corporate executives and local government leaders behind closed doors.”
“While the public remained blind-folded and in the dark, government officials negotiated with the billion-dollar company, signed secret agreements, and even provided the corporation with private information about the citizens of Effingham County- information that was procured by the government in the course of government functions,” the suit reads.
Lawsuit Traces Zoning Changes Back Years
The complaint lays out a timeline that predates Project Camellia’s public announcement and suggests that the county commission began weakening the role of the Planning Board several years ago.
In 2002, county commissioners established a Planning Board with the authority to review and make recommendations concerning rezoning requests, map and text interpretations, and other amendments. They appointed five members from the public with one from each county district.
In 2019, under what the suit says was the leadership of Chairman Wesley Corbitt, the Board of Commissioners “systematically gutted the authority of the planning board” under the guise of “streamlining” the zoning process. In doing this, the county “failed to follow the zoning ordinance by not first presenting the zoning amendment of the planning board’s authority to the planning board for recommendation to the county commission.” In that instance, no public hearing was held as required by the county zoning ordinance.
The end result: commissioners approved a text amendment to give themselves blanket authority over zoning changes without review by the Planning Board, the suit says.
According to the suit, on October 15, 2024, commissioners further limited the planning board’s authority so that it would only review and recommend rezoning requests. The change was not presented to the Planning Board and did not include public hearings.
Ten days later, commissioners attended a three-day retreat at the King and Prince Golf Resort on St. Simons Island. The public agenda described the retreat as a discussion of “county operations, projects and planning,” but the suit alleges that commissioners actually discussed revisions to Effingham County’s zoning ordinance, including rewriting the Permitted Use Table and expanding the county’s land-use definitions, which included the addition of data centers.
To top it off, the suit alleges commissioners violated the Georgia Open Meetings Act during the retreat to discuss personnel, property, and pending litigation without proper public notification.
Data Centers Formally Added to County Ordinance with an Unpermitted Steering Committee
Following the retreat, in December 2024, a Development Services Steering Committee was appointed by county commissioners to review proposed zoning changes.
According to the lawsuit, the committee had no authority under the zoning ordinance to review and recommend those changes. Nevertheless, the committee met several times between December 2024 and August 2025 as part of “Effingham County Ordinance Rewrite.”
During that time, commissioners amended Article 2 of the zoning ordinance and expanded the county’s land use definitions from 93 to over 550. Among the 550 was ‘Data Center,’ defined as a physical facility housing computer systems and associated telecommunications and storage components.
The suit alleges that the amendments did not receive the required public hearings before the Planning Board.
At that same meeting, according to the complaint, commissioners altered the Permitted Use Table and approved “data centers” as a new land-use category without holding a public hearing on the zoning amendment.
A footnote from the suit, however, states the following:
At NO POINT did the County Commission EVER approve any zoning ordinance to allow AI Data Centers. AI Data Centers are different from Data Centers. An AI Data Center is purpose-built to train and run machine learning models, whereas a traditional data center stores and manages general enterprise applications and traffic. Traditional data centers store data, host websites, and run everyday business software. AI Data Centers generate intelligence by processing massive datasets for model training and real-time inference. AI Data Centers use 5 to 6 times more kilowatts per rack than traditional- and demand massive amounts of continuous energy. Traditional data centers use standard air-cooling methods, while AI Data Centers require advanced liquid-cooling systems to safely handle EXTREME heat generation. AI Data Centers require stricter environmental, noise, and power-grid safeguards than traditional data center zoning because artificial intelligence facilities demand exponentially more electricity, water and cooling infrastructure. For this reason-too- this Court should vacate and declare the pertinent ordinances void ab initio.
The Permitted Use Table
On December 2, 2025, county staff recommended approval of a first reading of amendments to the table. Staff told commissioners that the proposed table needed to be corrected because the I-1 industrial zoning district had not been included and no land uses had been assigned to it.
Why does this matter? The suit states that without the correction, a newly defined use, like a data center, would require a conditional use permit on I-1 industrial property. A conditional use permit would require a public hearing.
The corrected Permitted Use Table received its first reading on December 16, 2025, as Ordinance 2026-352. It did not return for its second reading until August 4, 2026. No public hearings were held on the proposed amendment during that nine month period.
“The changes presented under Zoning Ordinance 2026-352 changed the landscape of Effingham by expanding the ability for ALL currently zoned industrial properties to build data centers.”
Project Camellia and the Nondisclosure Agreement
The complaint also brings the county’s negotiations over Project Camellia directly into the zoning dispute.
The suit alleges County Manager Tim Callanan signed a nondisclosure agreement with OpenAI OpCo, LLC and Callanan was prohibited from sharing information concerning Project Camellia with anyone, “including Effingham residents and taxpayers who pay his salary.”
What the Lawsuit Asks the Court to Do
The suit asks the Court to do the following:
- Declare that the County failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4(a) and its own Zoning Ordinances when adopting Ordinance 2026-352.
- Declare Ordinance 2026-352 ‘invalid and unenforceable
- Enjoin the County from implementing or acting in reliance upon Ordinance 2026-352 until all the public hearing procedures under Georgia law and the county ordinance are met.
- Allow the opportunity for the parties to engage in discovery
- Grant a hearing or trial as provided by law
- Order attorneys fees for violation the Georgia Open Meetings Act
- Order any further relief the Court sees just and appropriate
Note: This article relies upon a civil complaint filed against Effingham County, which includes allegations. It does not represent a judicial finding that Effingham County violated Georgia law, the Open Meetings Act, its zoning ordinance, or the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
