Fayetteville’s fight over data centers erupted again Monday as the City Council voted 8–2 to schedule a public hearing on a proposed data center ordinance—pushing forward a draft many residents believed had been sent back to the drawing board.
The vote came despite months of public pressure for a moratorium, a packed and volatile council chamber, and lingering confusion over what the council’s own 120‑day pause was supposed to accomplish.
That disconnect fueled the anger inside City Hall on Monday as a crowded audience repeatedly erupted in applause, boos, and shouts as council members debated how to move forward.
A Rally in the Rain. A Council Chamber on Edge
An hour before the 6:30 p.m. meeting, more than 50 residents gathered outside City Hall in the rain for a rally organized by local groups including the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and Action NC.
Using a microphone and loud speakers, PSL organizer Kristen Starks told the crowd she was tired of living in a system where “greedy developers have more control over our local politics, over our tax dollars, over our local conditions than any of the people who live and work here every single day.”
Starks stressed that the movement wasn’t opposed to data centers because it rejected technology.
“People are ready to stand up, not because they oppose technological progress, or development in the abstract,” she said. “But because these technologies are being used against the interests of our communities.”
When it came to her elected leaders, she didn’t soften her critique. “City Council members have made it abundantly clear that they do not act in the interests of the people of Fayetteville,” she told CityView.
At one point, Fayetteville police officers approached a PSL member, saying that a city ordinance prohibited the use of amplified sound equipment. Later, the same police officer said the equipment was OK to use.
Inside, the tension only escalated. Residents held signs supporting a moratorium and cheered Councilmember Shaun McMillan, who joined the rally, while booing members who supported advancing the ordinance. At one point, a resident was escorted out by police.
Mayor Mitch Colvin repeatedly called for order, and Police Chief Roberto Bryan addressed the room directly.
“We are trying to de-escalate. We have been patient. We are letting you go ahead and express yourself, but please be respectful,” Bryan said at one point during the data center discussion.
Quiet Drafting and Public Backlash
The roots of Monday’s clash stretch back to late 2025, when the Planning Commission began quietly reviewing a draft data center ordinance—a proposed amendment to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, or UDO, the rulebook that governs what can be built where.
According to records obtained by CityView, the commission discussed the draft ordinance at two meetings, one in October 2025 and another in February, each of which included a public hearing.
No one spoke at the October hearing, and the February hearing drew a single speaker—Robert Van Geons, president and CEO of the Fayetteville Cumberland County Economic Development Corporation, who spoke in favor of the ordinance.
The commission unanimously approved it and sent it to the City Council.
In January, Van Geons held a forum on the future of data centers in Fayetteville and Cumberland County, where he warned that data centers are coming “whether the region is ready or not.” He urged local governments to set clear rules before companies begin submitting proposals.
It quickly became a space for residents to voice concerns about rising utility costs, environmental impacts, and what many described as a lack of transparency from city and county officials.
By early March, the issue became heated during a City Council meeting. McMillan pushed for the council to take the lead on drafting regulations, mirroring the county’s process. Colvin pushed back, insisting the commission had been working on the ordinance for months.
For some council members and most of the public, this was the first time they learned an ordinance was already in development.
Only later did the motivation for that behind‑the‑scenes work come into focus.
At an April 6 council meeting, Senior Planner Craig Harmon revealed that the city began receiving inquiries from multiple data center developers in late summer 2025. Staff told those companies they could either submit applications immediately or wait for the city to write an ordinance. “And they came back to us and said, well, we’ll wait and see what you come up with,” Harmon said.
Then came April 13, when city staff formally presented the draft ordinance to the council and urged them to send it to a public hearing. Instead, a narrow majority voted to slow the process, saying they needed more information before moving forward. Although Colvin initially signaled support, he ultimately voted against the delay.
The motion that passed 5–4 directed staff to prepare a presentation on a potential moratorium rather than advancing the ordinance. McMillan, Greene, Jones, Ferguson, and Davis voted in favor; Colvin, McNair, Hondros, and Thompson opposed. Councilmember D.J. Haire was absent.
Residents and groups like Fayetteville Freedom for All have zeroed in on one of the most controversial pieces of the draft ordinance: allowing data centers “by right” in certain industrial zones. That designation means a developer can secure approval automatically if their site plan meets written standards without a public hearing, neighborhood input, or the chance for the city to add conditions.
That possibility hits close to home for residents living near the city’s industrial corridors. Fayetteville’s zoning map places the industrial districts directly beside some long‑established residential neighborhoods.
The 120‑Day Pause: What It Was Supposed to Do
Two weeks later, on April 27, the council voted 6–3 to approve a 120‑day delay on considering a moratorium.
The intent, as stated by Thompson, was broad: give the Planning Commission time to collaborate on a revised ordinance, allow for a public hearing, and give staff time to coordinate with the county and answer key questions regarding water, electricity, noise, and environmental impacts.
Thompson was joined by Colvin and Councilmembers Malik Davis, Stephon Ferguson, Hondros, and McNair in voting for the 120-day delay. Councilmembers Lynne Greene, Antonio Jones, and McMillan voted against it. Councilmember D.J. Haire did not attend the meeting.
To the public, the message was simple: the city was slowing down. But on June 1, that understanding unraveled.
After a public forum dominated by roughly 25 speakers calling for a moratorium and rejecting the proposed ordinance, Hondros asked the council to reach consensus—not a formal vote, which cannot be taken at a work session—on scheduling a June 22 public hearing on the same draft ordinance presented in April.
Any official vote to set that hearing would have to take place at the next regular city council meeting.
Thompson spoke to audience members directly, saying he was “confused” by the opposition he was hearing. “This is an opportunity for you to (be heard). For you to bring everybody back in again on the 22nd. Let us adopt (the UDO) that was presented before,” he said, referring to the city’s plan to amend its zoning and development rulebook with a new data center ordinance. “Now, until our 120 days are up, we can add or delete to that UDO.”
The motion for consensus passed 7–3, with McMillan, Greene, and Jones opposed.
McMillan blasted the move the next day, writing on his Facebook “despite unmistakable community outcry for a moratorium, the majority of council voted last night to expedite and grease the skids for data center proliferation.” He added that the “only thing the April 27th “120 day Pause” was meant to effectively pause was the establishment of a Data Center moratorium.”
A Last Attempt to Halt the Vote
On Monday, with Hondros’ agenda item—a proposal to schedule a public hearing for the data center ordinance—slated for the end of the meeting, McMillan made a motion to table the item indefinitely. He wanted to block the hearing from ever being scheduled.
He argued that advancing the ordinance now would be “less than a half measure” and could be read by the data center industry as a green light.
“It could signal to them that we’re willing to start allowing them in, and I think that is dangerous for us,” McMillan said.
He also pointed to North Carolina’s down‑zoning law, cautioning that any rules adopted in the coming months may be “very well be permanent for this community.”
The measure, known as Senate Bill 382, is a controversial North Carolina law that makes it more difficult for local governments to amend local zoning ordinances.. Republican lawmakers pushed the measure through in late 2024, bypassing a veto from then-Gov. Roy Cooper, who called the measure “a sham.”
The law prohibits cities and counties from decreasing development density, reducing permitted land uses, or creating nonconforming uses without the written consent of all affected property owners.
“That means if you fast forward 10 years from now and we’re dealing with the impacts of a data center because we’re not able to down zone because North Carolina law does not allow it,” McMillan said. “It will come back to this board, to this night, and I want y’all to remember that.”
After McMillan’s motion to table failed, Hondros moved to schedule the August 10 public hearing. There was no discussion about why the date changed from June to August.
Greene pressed to attach conditions requiring staff to bring back expert presentations before the hearing and to hold a public session to share that information.
Hondros agreed.
McMillan dismissed the amended motion as “political theater,” arguing that if the council had been serious about gathering information, “they would have done it back in March.”
What Comes Next
The August 10 hearing will focus on the current draft ordinance and the council can vote to adopt it that same day.
According to agenda and minutes obtained by CityView, the planning commission has not discussed amendments to the data center ordinance since it was presented to the council in April. The May meeting was cancelled due to a lack of business, City Clerk Jennifer Ayre told CityView.
The council can amend the ordinance afterward without triggering a new hearing unless changes create a materially different proposal, according to City Attorney Lachelle Pulliam.
Opponents now fear that once an ordinance is on the books, the city will lose leverage—especially under state law—and that the window for a moratorium will close.
“The moratorium protects the community from data center developers while they gather public input, study impacts, and develop comprehensive regulations,” Lisette Rodriguez, an organizer with Fayetteville Freedom for All, told CityView.
“One has to wonder why the city is rushing to pass these UDO changes when the County is expected to pass a moratorium? Our leaders should be on the same accord. Passing these UDO changes now will effectively kill any chance for a City moratorium.”
The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners, meanwhile, is moving through its own process. Commissioners held a public hearing on May 18—the first step required to enact a moratorium—but took no action.
Commissioners are scheduled to revisit the proposed data center moratorium on Thursday and could vote on it as early as Monday.
At a May 19 Fayetteville‑Cumberland Liaison Committee meeting, county Planning and Inspections Director Rawls Howard said the county’s data center ordinance remains in draft form and will go to the Planning Board before reaching commissioners. Howard noted that roughly 75% of the city and county standards align, but several differences stand out.
The county is proposing to review data centers through conditional zoning, a legislative process that gives commissioners broad discretion to add conditions, negotiate directly with applicants, and weigh public input more freely. That contrasts with the city’s use of a Special Use Permit, a quasi‑judicial process where residents can speak, but their comments often cannot be used to approve or deny the project unless they meet strict evidentiary standards.
Both governments distinguish between data centers that rely on the grid and those that generate their own power on‑site. The county adds one additional restriction: on‑site nuclear power generation is prohibited in its draft.
The county is also tailoring its rules to a rural landscape, requiring larger setbacks from property lines and adding extra buffers from “centers of sensitive populations” such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and convalescent facilities.
Government reporter Rachel Heimann Mercader can be reached at rheimann@cityviewnc.com or 910-988-8045.
Did you find this story useful or interesting? It was made possible by donations from readers like you to the News Foundation of Greater Fayetteville, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization committed to an informed democracy in Fayetteville and Cumberland County.
Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so CityView can bring you more news and information like this.
