A nonprofit organization and a group of property owners have filed suit against the City of Statesboro and the developer behind a proposed 99-megawatt data center, asking a judge to overturn the city’s decision to rezone approximately 26.49 acres for the project.
The Petition for Review/Appeal and Request for Declaratory Judgment was filed in Bulloch County Superior Court last week. The organization, Coastal Community United (Coastal Communities United), is listed as the lead petitioner alongside eleven individuals. The listed defendants include the City of Statesboro and 4 AM Development, LLC.
The petition addresses a rezoning application for property at 6539 Burkhalter Road in Statesboro. According to the complaint, 4 AM Development sought to change the approximately 26.49-acre property from R-4 residential zoning to O office/business zoning for the purpose of developing and operating a data center campus.
The petitioners contend the City Council’s decision violated city ordinances, state law, and constitutional protections in acts of intentional disregard. As a result, they’re asking the Superior Court of Bulloch County for de novo review under state law.
City’s New Data Center Ordinance at Center of Dispute
One of the central arguments involves an ordinance Statesboro adopted shortly before the rezoning application was filed.
According to the petition, the city amended its Unified Development Code on June 2, 2026, approximately a month before 4 AM Development submitted its application, to allow data centers in an O office/business zoning district. It also prohibited “hyperscale” data centers within the city limits.
The developers application, the petition filed in court says, pertains to a proposed 99-megawatt data center, right on the cusp of a hyperscale data center.
The petition also cited comments made by Statesboro Director of Planning and Development Justin Williams during the August 18 public hearing regarding the intent of the ordinance and the intent to prohibit hyperscale data centers, insteading allowing smaller “edge” facilities.
His comments, according to the petition, make the case that the city effectively approved through rezoning the type of project its ordinance had been designed to exclude.
Property Previously Zoned for Residential Development
The complaint also focuses heavily on the property’s previous R-4 zoning, referring to the 2024 Comprehensive Plan from the city, which suggests light industrial development should be placed elsewhere.
According to the filing, R-4 is intended to encourage development for apartments and other high density residential uses while protecting surrounding neighborhoods and maintaining a residential environment.
Also cited was the city’s housing study from 2024, which concluded that roughly half of the city’s housing demand was for multifamily housing – the type of development permitted under R-4 zoning.
Question of City’s Review Before Approval
Another facet of the petition alleges that the city did not study the project before approving the rezoning.
The petition claims residents questioned whether studies on hazardous materials and the environment, as well as input from DNR regarding battery storage, diesel generators, and cooling systems were sought. The petitioners say none had been commissioned by the City of Statesboro and elected officials relied on information supplied by the developer.
The lawsuit also alleges the city failed to adequately investigate potential impacts involving traffic, groundwater recharge, wetlands, the power grid, cooling systems, and fire safety.
Similarly, the potential impacts were not provided as part of a Development of Regional Impact Study (DRI) because the project fell under the threshold set by the state. As a result, no regional review was conducted prior to approval.
Nearby Property Owners Claim Direct Harm
The parties, the complaint says, have an interest in the Zoning Decision and will suffer “permanent, irreparable injury and damage should City’s improper and unlawful Zoning Decision stand.”
The petitioners are divided into several categories based on their relationship to the property, including “Sightline Owner Petitioners” who live in the city limits of Statesboro, “Nearby Owner Petitioners” who live in Bulloch County, and “Concerned Owner Petitioners” who have a vested interest in “ensuring that the zoning process undertaken by the City is done so in accordance with the law.”
Concerned Owner Petitioners: Coastal Community United, William Futch, Sandra Futch, and Holly Pate Berry
Sightlight Owner Petitioners: Lorraine Braselton, Julie Brannen, Siamak Khairi, Joan Khairi, Deborah Hurley, and Janeisha Jacobsen.
Nearby Owner Petitioners: Joan Turner and Jackie Fields
The petitioners state that the owners either purchased property for its rural or residential nature or have owned the property because they enjoy the serenity and residential aspect of this area of the city or adjacent to the city.
The lawsuit alleges those closest to the development could experience reduced property values, construction noise and vibrations, damage to wells, additional traffic, loss of wildlife, increased nighttime lighting and ongoing noise from diesel backup generators. More distant plaintiffs allege similar impacts to varying degrees based upon their proximity to the development.
For Court Consideration
The petitioners are asking for a superior court judge to consider a number of action items for relief, specifically:
to declare that the city failed to follow its own rules and order the city to reconsider the application in consideration of those rules.
to find the change from R-4 to O unconstitutional in various respects
to invalidate the rezoning decision; and
potentially invalidate the city’s Data Center Ordinance as a whole.
The petition also asks for non-biased studies to examine environmental effects, wildlife, water,and the power grid before making another decision.
The petitioners are represented by Robert Arne Fricks Sr. of Fricks Person Tourville, LLC in Warner Robins. The case has been assigned to Judge Matthew Hube.
The assertions in the lawsuit are allegations and the filing does not establish that the city or developer violated the law.
