Camden Data Center Ban: What's at Stake November 2

Monday's hearing covers more than a data-center ban. Housing, sewage rules, and permit requirements are on the table, and residents should make the county explain every new limit on their land.

Every Camden County resident who cares about private property rights should make plans to attend Monday night’s public hearing.

Commissioners will consider changes reaching beyond data centers into housing, sewage rules and the approvals some owners need to use their land. This hearing deserves a room full of residents prepared to question what government intends to restrict and why.

The county’s Oct. 28 notice says Ordinance 2026-11-01 would amend the Unified Development Ordinance, or UDO, to define “Data Center” and introduce data centers as prohibited uses. It also proposes special-use permits for residential uses in commercial districts, additional sewage requirements and changes to application and neighborhood-meeting procedures.

Read the definition and the prohibition together. The definition sets the boundaries of the proposed ban. Clear language can protect owners from inconsistent interpretation, but defining a use does not establish why it should be prohibited. Commissioners must make that case separately.

In August, commissioners adopted a five-month moratorium on data centers, data-processing facilities and cryptocurrency mining. The Tribune’s Aug. 4 report said the pause runs through Jan. 3, 2027, or until the county adopts zoning amendments addressing those uses.

The notice for Monday’s hearing describes a prohibition but gives no expiration date for it. Commissioners should say whether the proposed restriction would expire or remain in the UDO until changed.

At the August hearing, staff said it considered unlisted data-center uses already effectively prohibited and wanted to make that position explicit. Commissioner Randy Krainiak questioned moving toward prohibition before establishing the facts.

“I’m not looking for a prohibited use,” Krainiak said. “I want to know the facts before I tell them no.”

Residents should expect the board to meet that standard now. What has the county learned since August that makes prohibition the right answer?

Commissioners should identify exactly which activities the definition includes, where the prohibition would apply and how existing lawful uses would be treated. Owners should be able to understand the rule before it governs their choices.

Property rights also belong to the people next door. Noise, wastewater and demands beyond available infrastructure can interfere with their use of their own land.

The Tribune’s Oct. 22 report described Ponderosa residents seeking enforcement answers after the county revoked B&M Investments’ special-use permit for its sand mine and the company appealed. In an Oct. 6 letter described in that report, County Manager Erin Burke said the revoked county permit was no longer binding and could not be enforced, even while the county continued to expect compliance with its conditions.

Residents deserve to know what the appeal prevents, which protections remain enforceable and who has authority to act. An expectation of compliance does not, by itself, explain what protections people can rely on.

For Monday’s proposal, commissioners should explain how the rules would protect neighboring property, which risks require a prohibition and why enforceable operating standards or permit conditions would be insufficient.

The same scrutiny belongs to the housing and sewage changes. Owners should understand what additional sewage requirements would demand and what a special-use permit for a home in a commercial district would involve. The board should distinguish state requirements from local choices.

The proposal also would remove manufactured-home prohibitions in several residential districts. That could expand housing choices, and we welcome that possibility.

North Carolina gives local governments zoning authority, subject to statutory and constitutional limits. That authority does not settle whether a particular restriction is wise or necessary.

Camden’s land-use disputes have already reached federal court. B&M challenged the handling of its mine permit; a judge denied its temporary restraining order request in February without finally resolving the underlying constitutional claims. Developers filed a separate suit May 22 over the 2024 moratorium and alleged reversals in permitting positions. Those filings concern other county actions and do not establish that Monday’s proposal is unlawful.

The Tribune believes the starting point should be an owner’s freedom to use the land, with government responsible for explaining the public need for limits. State lawmakers should place firmer boundaries on that power. Camden should exercise restraint within the authority it already has.

These rules can outlast the current board and shape choices for people who will never build a data center.

The public hearing is Monday, Nov. 2, at 7 p.m., or as the agenda allows, in the Camden Public Library boardroom, 118 N.C. Highway 343 North. Residents may attend and comment, and the notice says the proposal may be changed after the hearing.

Come prepared to question the proposal and expect answers that address its actual language. If commissioners cannot clearly establish what a restriction covers and why it is needed, they should defer that provision.

Camden, show up while you can still help shape the decision.

Source note: Descriptions of the proposed changes are based on Camden County’s Oct. 28, 2026, news release. The August discussion and the mine-enforcement account come from the Tribune’s Aug. 4 and Oct. 22 reports. Litigation references rely on the Feb. 26 B&M order, the Allied Properties filing record and the Tribune’s June 27 reporting. The full proposed amendment text has not been independently reviewed for this editorial.